Curricular Goals and Personal Goals in Master's Thesis Projects: Dutch Student-Supervisor Dyads
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
One of the most important tasks for master’s thesis supervisors is to provide constructive feedback. This feedback should be goal-related to be effective, but is not perceived as such. In order to better understand goal-related feedback in Master’s thesis projects, the present study explores goals of students and supervisors and similarities and differences within and between supervision dyads. Twelve supervisors and students were interviewed, and their goals were categorized using a curricular perspective and personal goals perspective. Results indicated that most students and supervisors pursue both curricular and personal goals. Within dyads these goals vary greatly. Also, supervisors and students perceive each other’s goals in only a few cases. The findings suggest that goal-related feedback in Master’s thesis supervision appears to be complex, as the students and supervisors of this study (1) pursue different goals and (2) do not perceive each other’s goals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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