MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080893845 · doi:10.1002/nha3.20063

Writing realities: An exploration of drawbacks and benefits of publishing while enrolled in a doctoral program

2014· article· en· W2080893845 on OpenAlex
Robert C. Mizzi

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

VenueNew Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingCapstonePortfolioIdentity (music)Work (physics)Process (computing)Public relationsSociologyPosition (finance)Position paperKey (lock)Political scienceEngineering ethicsPedagogyMedical educationLibrary scienceManagementEngineeringComputer scienceBusinessWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper dives into the complicated work of publishing while working on a doctoral dissertation. Although the author recognizes the dissertation as being a capstone synthesis of a multi‐year endeavor, there can be some educational and social benefits to engaging with a publication process. A few key benefits include, but are not limited to, scholarly feedback on ideas, a strengthened writing portfolio and skills, a better position to receive awards, and an expansion of networking opportunities. The author reaffirms existing literature that points out that through publishing work, the doctoral identity shifts from that of being a student to becoming a scholar.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.308 · 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