Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The NACADA Review, now in its third year of publication, has come into its own. And we could not be more gratified. We think you will be pleased with the level of scholarship and the range of articles that you will find herein. This issue would not exist were it not for the energy and contributions of Quentin Alexander, whose editorial guidance directed several articles. We wish to thank Dr. Alexander for championing those works and supporting the idea that all voices should be heard.Among the voices ringing out in this current issue are Chimel and Hurs, who start us off with “Practitioner Inquiry to Develop Antiracist Advising Practice: Investigating Issues of Equity and Access.” McGill and Lazarowicz focus our attention on transfer students in “Increasing Access and Enhancing Transition Experiences of Transfer Students in a 2 +2 Program: A Descriptive Case Study.” Hawkes offers up another provocative article: “Advising Racially and Ethnically Diverse Students in Alternative College Admission Programs,” while Kopp provides new perspectives on “Disrupting Racialized Practice in a Post Pandemic Context.” Finally, Yeung moves us to another special section of the choir of voices—graduate students—in “Critical Race Theory within Graduate Education: Connecting Theory with Practice.” That last clause, connecting theory with practice, is one of the defining attributes of the NACADA Review. To reiterate our anthem: If connecting theory with practice rings true to you, please consider submitting your work to the NACADA Review.The choir voices will likely swell as we note two important books that should hit the shelves around the time this issue of the NACADA Review is published. Comprehensive Advisor Training and Development: Practices That Deliver, edited by Karen L. Archambault and Rebecca L. Hapes, will be appearing in its third edition. In the foreword, Jennifer L. Bloom references your voice: “Please always remember that you matter, the work that you do matters, and your voice matters” (Archambault & Hapes, 2022, p. x). We could not agree more, and we congratulate the editors and authors of this volume.Another recent publication of note is Scholarly Inquiry in Academic Advising (Second Edition), edited by Craig M. McGill, Samantha S. Gizerian, and Peter L. Hagen. Scholarly inquiry into academic advising needs a broad range of voices to convey it in its entirety, and nearly all voices are heard in this volume. Social science approaches to scholarly inquiry can be found there, but also scholarly inquiry from the vantage points of the arts, the humanities, and the natural sciences. Should you aspire to engage in scholarly inquiry in academic advising, perhaps with an eye toward one day publishing here in the NACADA Review, we strongly recommend this latter volume. As Wendy G. Troxel puts it, “This edition of Scholarly Inquiry in Academic Advising tackles both the globalization of academic advising and the expansion of applications and relevant considerations of research designs and paradigms” (McGill et al., 2022, p. xiv).
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,071 | 0,004 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».