Postdoctoral positions as preparation for desired careers: a narrative approach to understanding postdoctoral experience
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doing a ‘postdoc’ following a doctorate is becoming more and more common worldwide as the pre-tenure job market continues shrinking in relation to the number of PhD graduates. Yet, behind statistics and descriptions of collective experience, how individuals experience the postdoctoral period is largely unknown, especially how they use this phase as preparation for future employment. Drawing on longitudinal data, this paper provides a close look at how seven postdoctoral scholars in life sciences from two Canadian universities intentionally prepared for their desired careers through day-to-day activities. The participants’ daily activities were situated in three ways: intellectual, networking and institutional. It was found that they were all agentive in preparing for the future; yet, agency was exercised differently due to different institutional and personal contexts. The personal was found to be a significant factor that influenced their career preparations and decisions. This study addresses the gap in the literature regarding postdoctoral experiences and enriches our understanding about postdoctoral experience and training.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it