MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4313241278 · doi:10.1093/ae/tmac071

How Welcoming Is Your Workspace?

2022· article· en· W4313241278 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Entomologist · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueOccupational Health and Safety Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWorkspaceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

For a space where scientists spend a considerable amount of time, the laboratory is often a lackluster environment. We’ve all seen labs cluttered with egregious piles of equipment or strewn with Fischer Scientific catalogs and potentially useful Styrofoam boxes, the lab doors bare aside from a list of emergency contacts, and, if you’re lucky, a few cut-out photographs from last year’s Entomological Society of America insect calendar. More importantly, how often are new lab members reliant on the wisdom of the long-term technician or postdoc to find the new sleeves of Petri dishes or the large-sized gloves amidst the chaos of an unorganized space? We believe the setting in which we work can have a significant impact on our well-being. We feel most scientifically creative and productive when we’re safe and supported in our lab environment. The lab environment is not just the physical space that we occupy; it represents the lab community and its values. Though there is a certain charm to a dingy but well-loved space, there are many tangible ways to make a lab space and lab community feel more open and inviting. Share information between lab members. Label equipment and storage areas, create digital repositories, and make a lab directory with contact information. This lessens the knowledge gap between new and senior members of the lab, as well as keeping the lab organized and functioning smoothly. Consider how your lab communicates. We have found that the messaging app Slack works well, that channels set for storing lab protocols, ordering information, colony care, and even fun channels for sharing recipes and memes. Develop a safety stash for your lab. We were inspired to do so by a tweet from Dr. Tera Levin at the University of Pittsburgh. Ours has pain medication, cough drops, toiletries, hair ties, emergency lunch options, and sweet treats. Post stickers, posters, or notes that reflect the values of your lab. Pictured above, the entrance to the Hermann Lab of Arthropod Ecology and Trophic Interactions includes stickers of our study organisms, reminders that it’s okay to not be okay, photos of the lab doing fieldwork, and a massive Pride flag. Institute a “crappy/happy” introduction into your lab meetings. At the start of our lab meetings, we all share one crappy thing and one happy thing from the week, which has been a great bonding tool for all lab members (including the undergraduates) and highlights our shared struggles. Take workshops together on diversity, equity, and inclusion in your workspace. At our home institution, we have the Rainbow Network, which allows prospective students to readily identify research groups where faculty and lab members have received training on LGBTQ+ issues and are committed to inclusivity. Incorporate group lab readings that show how DEI can be integrated into the lab space. This offers an opportunity for all members of the lab to feel welcome and prompts conversations about inclusivity and equity in your space. Recommended papers include McGill et al. 2021 (“You Are Welcome Here: A Practical Guide to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for Undergraduates Embarking on an Ecological Research Experience”) and Chaudhury et al. 2020 (“Next Steps in Dismantling Discrimination: Lessons from Ecology and Conservation Science”). Create a field safety plan specific to your lab’s needs with inclusivity in mind. At the beginning of the summer, we sat as a group with our new crop of undergraduates to devise a field safety plan for any situations that might arise and facilitated an honest conversation about the intersection of race/ gender identity and field safety. (Part of this included drafting a step-by-step guide for what to do if pulled over by the police.) Our lab at Penn State provides bright field safety vests adorned with the PSU logo so that all lab members can be easily identified in the field. On field sampling days, we communicate which lab members are participating and share the addresses of the sampling sites. Though these steps may seem inconsequential compared to the structural change needed in scientific institutions to guide our community toward inclusivity and equity, change can start with how you maintain your lab environment. Lillian Germeroth (M.S. student) and Jess Kansman (postdoc fellow) are members of the Hermann Arthropod Ecology and Trophic Interactions Lab (PI Sara Hermann) at Penn State University in University Park, PA. This article is written to reflect the development of community and inclusivity efforts in the Hermann lab.

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.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,592
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,128
Tête enseignante GPT0,484
Écart entre enseignants0,356 · 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