MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1908485035 · doi:10.5539/ies.v8n9p185

A Good Supervisor–Ten Facts of Caring Supervision

2015· article· en· W1908485035 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kaarina Määttä

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupervisorPerspective (graphical)PsychologyClinical supervisionWork (physics)PedagogyMedical educationEngineering ethicsManagementMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the elements of caring supervision of doctoral theses. The purpose was to describe the best practices as well as challenges of supervision especially from the supervisor’s perspective. The analysis is based on the author’s extensive experience as a supervisor and related data obtained for research and developmental purposes. Caring supervision is summarized into ten facts that illustrate the multidimensional nature of a supervision relationship. The findings can help supervisors develop in their important work of supervising doctoral theses.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.036
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.531
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.080 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsFrench-language works237,207