The facilitation and hindrance of scholarly activity as reported by The University of British Columbia education faculty members
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study was concerned with developing and exploring a reasonably, comprehensive scheme of categories which describes, from the perspective of The University of British Columbia education faculty members, what facilitates and hinders their scholarly activity. The Critical Incident Technique was used to elicit 547 incidents from forty-one faculty members. These incidents were categorized in three separate ways: according to who facilitated and hindered (the reported responsible agent or agency), to what facilitated and hindered (the reported action of the agent or agency), and to the phase of scholarly activity that was reported facilitated or hindered. Six agent or agency, twenty-three action, and six phase categories were identified. An examination of the action categories themselves revealed that they could be grouped under the superordinate categories: direct, enable, and motivate. An examination of the frequency of reported incidents in categories permitted the identification of relationships among agent or agency, phase, and action categories. Several types of evidence provided support for the reliability and validity of the category schemes. From an examination of the findings as a whole, six conclusions were drawn. First, not all action categoriesare relevant for every person, project or phase. Second, not all agent or agency categories are involved to a noticeable extent with every action category. Third, the action categories are interrelated. Fourth, the action categories are bipolar in the sense that each actually does contain or may plausibly be said to contain both facilitating and hindering events. Fifth, the action categories happen or could happen as part of everyday university life. Sixth, there is evidence to suggest that the action categories are useful. Future studies might: 1) undertake further studies which will more fully explore and validate the action categories; 2) determine to what extent the action category scheme applies to other faculties of education and other faculties; 3) use alternative methods to confirm relationships among action, agent or agency and phase categories; 4) examine how the action category scheme is affected by diverse types of change; and 5) determine how an administrator can best accomplish the task of motivating, enabling, and directing scholarly activity.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».