Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We are again very happy to expand the boundaries of scholarship related to academic advising. As you may know, the NACADA Review seeks to amplify new voices, showcase a variety of methodologies, and embrace different epistemologies; all in service of our goal to broaden our understanding of academic advising as a practice and a field of study.The articles that make up this issue are an excellent example of the many lenses that we can use to better “see” academic advising and its effects on students, practitioners, and institutions of higher education around the world.The issue begins with a piece that follows the traditional social science framework for scholarship, Post COVID-19: A Comparative Assessment of Academic Advising by Peters, Burton, and Rich. The authors grounded their work in the NACADA Core Competencies and Developmental Advising theory, creating a survey to measure undergraduate students' experiences with in-person and online advising options. This research uses quantitative methods to deliver information useful for any practitioner or administrator searching for answers on what today's students want from advising.The next piece is a must-read for anyone interested in scholarship through a humanities lens. Provost's article, Cooling Out Vs. Warming Up: History of the Debate explores how the history of community colleges, as well as the language used to define academic advising at community colleges, influences expectations of advisors at those institutions. This article is essential for anyone interested in constructivist epistemologies or who works at a community college (or both). We encourage everyone to share this article with colleagues and delve into this thought-provoking look at the purpose of advising and community colleges.This issue also includes a qualitative study centering on the voices of former doctoral students who completed their PhD in education. In Doctoral Student Perceptions of Faculty Advisors: Four Supportive Behaviors to Promote Doctoral Completion, authors Roy, McGill, and Bloom analyze how advisors help—and in some cases hinder—these students on the path to degree completion. This is a straight-forward, valuable read for anyone who advises doctoral students or who is considering becoming a doctoral student.Finally, the NACADA Review offers an article we believe will become a classic in the field. Culturally Engaged Career Advising: Gordon's Model Expanded builds upon Gordon's “3-I” approach to career advising. Authors Streufert, Smith, and Hebreard add the dimensions Include and Institutional Design to make the model more culturally engaging and to provide a framework for equity within career and academic advising. Make this article the centerpiece of a summer staff meeting or advisor retreat—your team members and your students will benefit from it, no question.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,078 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,020 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,068 | 0,034 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».