MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158450769

The PhD Dissertation Defense in Canada: An Institutional Policy Perspective.

2008· article· en· W2158450769 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shuhua Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Political scienceFunction (biology)Public relationsPublic administrationSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing upon publicly accessible information on the websites of ten Canadian research universities, this paper aims to shed some light on the assumed variation of institutional policies regarding the PhD dissertation defense in Canada. It discusses How are the institutional policies on the doctoral dissertation defense different across Canadian universities?; What do these differences imply about the role, function, and purpose of the oral defense in the PhD examination in Canada?; and How might these differences inform PhD education in Canada?. It concludes with a call for academics and students’ awareness of these variations in policy and practice.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Educational Administration and PolicySame topicDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsFrench-language works237,207