Notice bibliographique
Résumé
My name is Sam Hoang, and I am an Assistant Professor at Seattle University. ESJP 2024 was my first experience with a conference of this particular format. When learning about this conference from my colleague, Yen, I was curious about the invitation to submit artifacts that do not take the form of a traditional research paper. We were interested in writing a paper reflecting on our journeys to becoming faculty as women of color. Citing external sources when we were writing about our experiences did not make sense since our experiences are unique and not something that should require citation. Citations are something that I would expect to include in submissions to any other conference venue so the explicit invitation to submit nontraditional artifacts was very freeing in this aspect and made it a lot easier to think that our idea for a paper reflecting on our journey through academia would be an appropriate paper format and topic for the conference. It really freed up me and my coauthors to write without feeling like we were required to cite other sources to corroborate our experiences. With regards to the review process, we did not actually get many reviews in person since the discussion table included other authors that all reviewed each other. Because there were three papers to discuss in a short period of time, we did not have a chance to discuss our paper at all. Additionally, our reviewer was also one of the organizers and was busy with other tasks to keep the conference running during the discussion period. Therefore, our reviews were shared with us mainly via email. While I like the idea of doing a peer review session during the conference, for our paper specifically, we did not have a great experience with regards to the review session held during the conference. One major advantage to this reviewing structure is that we got to know our reviewer before seeing their review and vice versa. It made the review process feel warmer than I experienced with other conference and journal submissions. Getting to know our reviewer prior to receiving their review helped our reviewer understand our reasonings behind the chosen format of our submission. Additionally, presenting our paper before receiving our reviews also created an opportunity to present out work to the reviewer making it a much richer experience by adding onto what is written in the manuscript. If this format is pursued in the future, it would be helpful if there was more time to discuss the papers during the conference. Depending on the number of submissions, it would be helpful to have more presentation sessions and only have 1-2 papers to discuss in each discussion period so that there is more time for reviewers and authors to talk about their papers. It would also be helpful if there were other times or spaces designated in the schedule to give authors and reviewers more time to chat about their papers outside of the presentation and discussion session. With regards to the conference itself, I really enjoyed having various art materials available at the venue. Arts are not usually treated as relevant to engineering so it was awesome to see the arts be a major component of this conference. While I did not know what to do with the art materials at first, I was inspired by seeing other people using the materials. Once I started using the materials, I found it helpful for managing my fidgeting. I generally have a hard time sitting still so interacting with the art materials was a great way for me to channel my excess energy while still listening to the presented. (communication by email on 2025-04-22)
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 | 0,002 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».