A poetics of line: Exploring the limits of narrative self-inquiry in a writing process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this writing thesis I argue that the act of writing allows me to compose a life of scholarship. In this Narrative Self-Inquiry I examine two questions in a series of five articles: what understanding of self in relationship to writing can examination of one person's writing develop, and what consequences does this understanding have for the teaching and learning of writing? I then sketch out the process of this work and I conclude with an assessment of possibilities of this work for a future program of research and for teaching and learning writing. Developing an understanding of self in relationship to writing, I take into account personal and professional experiences that include cultivation of aesthetic feelings and understanding the aesthetic in teaching and learning writing. Using personal experience methods I draw on field texts compiled from my writing on a variety of subject areas, journals, and reading response logs. Aspects of my experience inform my writing, specifically I draw on Dance, Teaching, and living in communities. I explore metaphor, voice, landscape, story, and relationship. I borrow themes from Ballet. Aesthetic feelings have significance for the teaching and learning of writing. Possibilities for teaching in elementary classroom, pre service and graduate settings are: (i) In learning to write different layers of self need to be taken into account; (ii) Teachers can draw on students' literacy experience in fields other than writing to teach writing; (iii) The significance of aesthetic feelings for teaching and learning is that the act of writing has academic, scientific and aesthetic qualities that may be drawn out of students by teachers; (iv) The significance of aesthetic feelings for teaching and learning is that learners' own experiences can become rich sources for learning about writing; and, (v) The significance of aesthetic feelings for teaching and learning is that teachers need to be aware that their own history interacts with students to create aspects of character. The contact a teacher has can have lasting effects on the experiences of those students that will show up in their writing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".