Developing the next generation of community-based researchers: tips for undergraduate students
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
Abstract Universities and funding agencies are increasingly calling for collaborative research between community partners and academics. When combined with faculty roles in training the next generation of researchers, these collaborative frameworks can present a challenge to undergraduate students seeking experience with research activities—both in terms of the types of needed training and the timelines involved. The quality and effectiveness of student research experiences, however, will have longstanding impacts on their future research careers, as well as repercussions pertaining to the community experience with the research process. The purpose of this study is to provide primarily undergraduate students with information about how to get the most out of their community-based research experiences. Given geography's traditional strengths as a field-engaged discipline, community-based research is a natural fit for geography and brings renewed vitality to the discipline. Key topics to be addressed include finding community research opportunities, identifying what you should know and what you should ask before engaging with a research team, how to obtain a breadth of research skills and experiences, researcher etiquette and demeanour in the community, budgeting, time management and developing long-term, meaningful relationships with communities. Keywords: Undergraduate student research trainingcommunity-based researchcollaborationfunding Notes 1. Faculty refers to university professors, lecturers and teaching staff. 2. There are many different terms used for community-based research internationally [i.e. participatory action research in the UK and Australia (Cameron & Gibson, Citation2005; Jupp, Citation2007), community-based participatory research in the USA (Andrews, Newman, Meadows, Cox, & Bunting, Citation2010; Viswanathan et al., Citation2004) or community-based research in Canada (Roche, Citation2008)]. For the general purposes of this study, we use the term community-based research to draw upon our lessons and experiences in Canada. 3. PIRGs are "autonomous, non-profit, university student-funded and directed organizations that conduct research, education, and action on social and environmental justice issues" (OPIRG, 2011, http://www.opirg.org). 4. In 2009, the Government of Canada's federal budget indicated that Canada's three main granting institutions, including the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, needed to cut roughly $148 million from their budgets over the next 3 years (Laucius, Citation2009).
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.001 | 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