MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2200946595 · doi:10.1126/science.349.6254.1406

My trek back to science

2015· article· en· W2200946595 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael P. Marshak

Notice bibliographique

RevueScience · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueBiomedical and Engineering Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEnvironmental science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

After I finished my Ph.D. studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2012, my career was at a crossroads. I had gone to graduate school with the hope of pursuing a career in academia, but by the time I got my degree, that dream seemed far from reality. I was burned out, and I couldn't even bring myself to look for postdoctoral positions, let alone consider a lifetime in the lab. I also knew I couldn't possibly make an objective decision about what I should do for the rest of my life. I needed a break. ![Figure][1] ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER > “I was burned out. … I needed a break.” I am often drawn to extremes, so I thought: “What could possibly be further from a Ph.D. in chemistry than to thru-hike the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT), traversing the United States from Mexico to Canada?” It was May and the sun was blazing at the California-Mexico border when I began my 2668-mile journey. Just days before I had been working in a chemistry lab, conducting research that I could take in seemingly infinite directions, but now there was just one: north. I started walking. Over the next several weeks, my focus narrowed until my biggest concern was the number of miles to the next water source. I simply wanted to physically survive each day, which was a welcome change from the previous 5 years. In contrast with my experience in graduate school, progress on the trail was well defined and quantifiable: Each step brought me closer to Canada. Occupied with satisfying my immediate physical needs, I didn't spend much time consciously thinking about the future. But after 16 weeks, 4 days, and 7 hours, I reached the Canadian border and my hiking adventure was over. Reality set in: I needed to return home and figure out what I was going to do next. I caught a bus from the trail's northern terminus at the Canadian border to Vancouver, then another bus to Seattle, Washington, then a flight back to Boston. I returned home 45 pounds under my typical healthy weight, as it had been difficult for me to consume all the calories I needed to hike nearly a marathon a day. While I recovered, I needed to eat every few hours and walk several miles each day to prevent leg spasms. It also took time to readjust emotionally to a life where there was no obvious, well-trodden path to follow. I felt bored and detached after my trek, but this only made me more eager to start a new journey. Initially, I wasn't sure I was any closer to making a career decision than I had been before I started my hike, but after a few weeks of rest and recovery, it became clear that the weeks on the trail had refreshed me and renewed my love of science. I wanted to read journal articles to learn of new discoveries that had been reported while I was away. I was eager to embark on independent research. Most importantly, I missed the community of academics I had left behind. So I decided I wanted to do a postdoc after all. I set up a meeting with my graduate school adviser, who then put me in contact with the lab head who would become my postdoctoral adviser. His research team was designing new organic flow battery chemistries, and it was a perfect fit for everyone: They got the synthetic chemist they needed, and I got a chance to work in an applied field with engineers, physical chemists, and theoreticians. After hiking, I began to think much more about big-picture ideas than I had in graduate school. Although my Ph.D. said “Inorganic Chemistry,” to the motley group of hikers I encountered on the trail I was simply a scientist. I took that identity to heart and came back to the lab with fewer inhibitions about learning new fields of research. I had also become more accepting of the messiness of cutting-edge science. Basic research can be slow and in efficient, and sometimes it's not clear if the effort will be worth the reward of discovery. But hiking the PCT helped me learn to celebrate little accomplishments, and to take each day and each experiment one step at a time—lessons that have served me well as I pursue my academic career path. [1]: pending:yes

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,435
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,855

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,227 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScienceMême sujetBiomedical and Engineering EducationTravaux en français237 207