Students at the Margins: Contesting the Ruling Relations of Student Codes of Conduct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation draws on Dorothy Smith’s (1987, 1990a, 1999, 2005) method of institutional ethnography (IE) to critically examine recent revisions to student codes of conduct in Ontario’s universities through an institutional ethnographic study of York University in the province of Ontario, Canada. Starting from the standpoint of marginalized student activists, my empirical research shows how these policy changes have been informed by a new rights and responsibilities discourse designed to reduce political conflict on campuses. Couched in terms of promoting student inclusion, fairness, and campus safety, this discourse works with managerial technologies to increase the surveillance and regulation of marginalized student political advocacy work. I describe how these changes to student codes of conduct obfuscate the ways in which client-service sector relations operate to depoliticize student dissent and silence marginalized student voices, especially voices that raise controversial issues of oppression and challenge the status quo. By examining the textually mediated forms of managerial discourses that university administrator’s use to guide, monitor, and discipline potential student non-academic conduct, I further show how marginalized student political advocacy work that addresses diverse issues of race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and indigeneity are increasingly socially organized to uphold a depoliticized regime of corporate social relations that are operating in Canadian universities today. In examining informant interviews, I also discuss the contradictory and uneven ways that marginalized student advocates respond to these discourses and examine the effects of this new regime on the social organization and social relations of marginalized students’ political advocacy work.
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 | 0.031 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.122 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".