MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024126375 · doi:10.1080/03075070802373008

Adventures in transdisciplinary learning

2008· article· en· W2024126375 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Higher Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisciplineAdventureCross disciplinaryHigher educationSociologyNarrativeEngineering ethicsPedagogyWork (physics)Political scienceSocial scienceEngineeringComputer scienceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross‐disciplinary collaboration is being promoted in academic and professional circles as an important strategy for developing new avenues of scholarly inquiry and for generating knowledge that is immediately applicable to the resolution of real‐world problems. This move toward cross‐disciplinary work has translated into calls for enhanced interdisciplinarity in doctoral education, although there are several barriers to the successful implementation of cross‐disciplinary work, especially during PhD studies. This article presents a personal narrative analysis of the authors’ experiences in a doctoral‐level transdisciplinary learning environment to illustrate the antecedents of successful cross‐disciplinary engagement and the supports required to sustain this type of work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.402
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.139 · 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