Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on Jessie King’s Teachings in Practice 1 Positionality, the book editors deepen their self-reflections as a way of situating themselves within the writing and making transparent the ways in which their positionalities may influence their voices. They encourage readers to also reflect on their positionalities and the ways in which these influence counselling and other relationships. As a practice tool, the authors introduce their revised version of the Wheel of power and privilege (drawing on previous versions in the literature). The spokes of the wheel introduce a series of descriptors of cultural identities and social locations, alongside the *isms that often accompany those lived experiences (e.g., gender identity, Indigeneity, social class). Melissa models walking around the wheel of privilege as she reflects on her positionality. The authors acknowledge the limitations of “white or whitish” space in the context of academic writing and position language choices made in the book as an act of justice-doing.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".