Over time, how do post-Ph.D. scientists locate teaching and supervision within their academic practice?
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
While building a strong research profile is usually seen as key for those seeking a traditional academic position, teaching is also understood as central to academic practice. Still, we know little of how post-Ph.D. researchers seeking academic posts locate teaching and supervision in their academic practice, nor how their views may shift as they are hired into such positions. Drawing on a framework of identity-trajectory narrative, this two-year study of seven Canadian post-Ph.D. scientists examines in-depth the shifting place of teaching within their academic practice. A positive view of the role of teaching in the post-Ph.D. position evolved to a more complex positioning as individuals became pre-tenure. The contributions of this study include a focus on early career scientists (much previous research examines social scientists); its rare longitudinal reach following individuals across roles; and its integration of teaching within other academic 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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