Developing research capacity among graduate students in an interdisciplinary environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical review of research to date suggests a need to explore the development of graduate student research capacity from the standpoint of graduate students. Six members of an interdisciplinary graduate student colloquium at the Centre for Youth and Society (Victoria, Canada) offer their perspective. Our research involved four phases, each illustrating the processes that refined our understanding of the components that contributed to the development of our graduate student research capacity. First, we engaged in several round-table discussions and created a conceptual map depicting components that were meaningful in developing our research capacity. Second, we examined previous work on graduate student research capacity development and compared this data to the conceptual map. Third, we conducted a thematic analysis of secondary data of graduated students with similar interdisciplinary training and involvement in the Centre. Finally, the data analysis was used to refine the conceptual map that may benefit educators and future graduate students. From the standpoint of students themselves, we discuss those components perceived as best contributing to the development of graduate student research capacity and highlight the importance of an interdisciplinary context and writing process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.184 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".