Managing Faculty-Student Collaborations in Research and Authorship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trend toward multidisciplinary research funding and partnerships brings together researchers with diverse perspectives. However, guidelines for effective supervision in multidisciplinary research are lacking. The New Canadian Children and Youth Study is described as an example of multidisciplinary, multi-site research involving research-ers and students in a variety of roles. The benefits and potential difficulties of multiple authorships are reviewed in light of faculty-student collaborations. Three hypothetical vignettes illustrate research issues and considerations to be made by both faculty and students. Recommendations are outlined for ethical practices in determining author-ship contributions in faculty-student research collaborations. La tendance à financer la recherche multidisciplinaire et les partenariats qu’elle suscite rassemble des chercheurs de divers horizons. Toutefois, ce domaine manque de lignes directrices pour une supervision efficace. La New Canadian Children and Youth Study est décrite comme un exemple de recherche multidisciplinaire multi-sites à laquelle cher-cheurs et étudiants contribuent à divers titres. Les avantages et difficultés possibles des paternités multiples sont étudiés sous l’angle des collaborations entre professeurs et étu-diants. Trois vignettes hypothétiques illustrent les enjeux et les considérations dont ceux-ci doivent tenir compte. Des recommandations déontologiques pour déterminer la paternité des contributions dans les recherches menées en collaboration par des profes-seurs et des étudiants sont présentées dans leurs grandes lignes. There is a growing trend in research funding and partnerships toward multidisciplinary and multiple researcher collaboration (Erlen, Siminoff, Sereika, & Sutton, 1997; Holaday & Yost, 1995). This trend brings together professionals
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".