Engaging Graduate Students with an Images of Research Competition
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background In the fall of 2014, librarians secured a grant from the Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund to implement programming in support of graduate student professional development and community building. As part of this initiative, the Images of Research competition was launched in partnership with the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research, and has grown into a much-anticipated annual campus event. Purpose This competition leverages library expertise and spaces to promote the varied types of research occuring on campus. In addition to providing graduate students with the opportunity to tell the story of their research to the broader campus community, the Images of Research competition allows them to improve skills in succinct communication while fostering community and enhancing student experience. Method Once a year, graduate students are invited to submit a high-resolution image plus a short, plain-language description explaining how the image relates to their research. All images that meet the technical requirements are adjudicated by a judging panel consisting of faculty, graduate students, and (when possible) a communications professional. Entries are judged on their originality, aesthetic appeal, relationship between the image and the student’s research and clarity of the accompanying description. The top 24 images are selected as semi-finalists and subjected to online voting to determine a People’s Choice award winner. Competition organizers use a variety of online tools to facilitate competition submission, judging and voting. People’s Choice voting has in some years been restricted to our university community and in others left open to the wider world; graduate students have indicated a preference for university-only restrictions. All competitors grant permission to include their entry in our Open Access institutional repository, and the winners and semi-finalists are uploaded after the conclusion of the competition. Results Prize winners are announced at a catered reception in the library, and an exhibition of winning and semi-finalist entries remains on display for approximately one month. Prize winners are not eligible to enter future competitions, but other entrants, including semi-finalists, are welcome to re-submit with a new image. Organizers view the presence of repeat competitors over the years as a measure of the competition’s success. Entrants are surveyed after the competition so that their feedback can guide future iterations of the event, and the overall response has been extremely positive. Conclusion The resulting images have been featured in our alumni magazine, on social media, as displays for meetings and in the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research offices. The involvement of campus partners is a significant contributor to the ongoing success of the competition.
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 | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».