Factors Influencing Clinical Students' Perceptions of an Embedded Research Project and Associated Publication Output
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we describe student perceptions of the value of a short, compulsory research project embedded in a clinical degree program, the research output in terms of publications, and the factors influencing this. It was hypothesized that student attitudes toward the project, student perceptions of how much the project contributed to their generic skills, and the number of publications submitted or prepared for submission would be associated with perceived quality of supervision, perceived difficulty of the project, career plans, and attitude before commencement of the project. We explored this using a questionnaire comprising 30 questions that included demographics, Likert scales, and categorical responses. Student attitudes toward research were found to be associated with student attitude before the start of the project, perceived difficulty of the project, perceived quality of supervision, and perceived relevance to the profession. Students thought that the research project contributed most to the skills of "information gathering" and "critical evaluation" and the least to "teamwork," "problem solving," and "oral communication." Research output was significantly linked to perceived quality of supervision and the help students received with data analysis and data collection, though not with the project report itself. In conclusion, although the success of the research project was influenced by many factors, the perceived quality of supervision influenced all three outcome measures. Therefore it is clear that optimization of this aspect offers the most scope for enhancing the student learning experience.
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 | 0.021 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".