MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065934006 · doi:10.1080/14703290903068862

Oscillating role identities: the academic experiences of education doctoral students

2009· article· en· W2065934006 on OpenAlexaff
Marian Jazvac‐Martek

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovations in Education and Teaching International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchThematic analysisAgency (philosophy)PedagogyGraduate studentsSemi-structured interviewPsychologyHigher educationMathematics educationSociologyMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports initial results from a larger qualitative study on doctoral student experiences in the PhD process. The social‐psychological notion of ‘role identities’ is introduced as a complimentary framework for gaining insights into doctoral experiences. Findings from qualitative thematic analyses of questionnaire and interview data highlight doctoral student agency in the PhD process and oscillations between student and academic role‐identities.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.021
Scholarly communication0.0160.009
Open science0.0030.024
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.451 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations161
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovations in Education and Teaching InternationalSame topicDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsFrench-language works237,207