University Preparation for Workplace Writing: An Exploratory Study of the Perceptions of Students in Three Disciplines
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
This study investigated how Canadian university student interns in three disciplines perceived their educational preparation for workplace writing. The students' perceptions differed markedly according to disciplinary background, with Management students responding very positively about their preparation, Political Science students responding positively, and Communications Studies students responding negatively. The authors discuss how these responses potentially reflect differing student expectations; theorypractice linkages; and patterns of integrating instruction and practice in research, analysis, and workplace genres across these disciplines. The results suggest that universities can prepare students for workplace writing by providing them with instruction and practice in common workplace genres, relevant research and analytic skills, experience in collaborative writing, ample feedback on their writing, and an appreciation for the socially situated nature of genres and genre acquisition. The authors also point to the benefits of work placement and internship programs and suggest directions for further research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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