Bibliographic record
Abstract
What do doctoral students want? What is the type of career that they wish to embrace after they obtain the PhD? These questions have become of importance to higher education policymakers over the past 20 years as claims that we are entering the ‘knowledge economy’ became mainstream and ‘knowledge producers’ were found to be produced in universities. In the United States as well as in European and Commonwealth countries, many manifestos promote transformations in doctoral education, usually suggesting that the acquisition of ‘generic skills’ become a central part of the program so that graduates can put their knowledge to effective use outside academia. But, of course, students must be attracted by such opportunities, so another central theme is the need to change the doctoral students’ perspective about the job market: tenure-track positions in research universities are not the only way to go for PhDs and other career options must be considered, including jobs in industry. On the other hand, the authors of an equally abundant literature condemn these trends and voices fears that, by being too integrated to economic and political spheres, academics will put an end to their specific, original contribution to society as its disinterested critics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".