MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1839781141 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v30i1.183344

Mostly True Confessions: Joint Meaning-Making about the Thesis Journey

2000· article· en· W1839781141 on OpenAlex
Lynn McAlpine, Joel Weiss

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupervisorConversationMeaning (existential)NarrativeProcess (computing)PedagogyPsychologyHigher educationMeaning-makingSociologyManagementLinguisticsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thesis supervisory role is perhaps the most prominent, yet least understood, of a faculty member's teaching responsibilities. We retrospectively explore the doctoral supervisory experiences of a doctoral student and her thesis supervisor through the process of co-constructing a personal narrative of the journey. Our story addresses several assumptions of the thesis process: the dissertation is an original piece of research by the student; the supervisors in an arms-length relationship because the thesis is the intellectual property of the student; the supervisor and committee are experts while the student is a novice being introduced into the culture; the thesis process is the same regardless of the program and the goals of student and supervisor. We invite others to join our conversation by sharing stories of their experiences. By accumulating knowledge in an under-researched area, it is possible that higher education can improve its record of successfully completed doctoral dissertations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it