Learning the Development of Community-Engaged Scholars Through Course-Based Learning: A Student Perspective
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 manuscript chronicles the development of three graduate students as community engaged scholars, from the perspective of one of the students. With the support of the course instructor, a student (Thomas) and the instructor (Leah) discuss students’ development during their enrollment in a graduate course in community-engaged scholarship (CES) at the University of Guelph, a large comprehensive university in southwestern Ontario. Drawing from students’ reflection papers and progress reports, this article highlights students’ thoughts on communities’ perceptions of scholars; differences and similarities between community-engaged scholarship and more traditional forms of social science research; and challenges and opportunities of collaboration. Data highlighting students’ experiences with power relations, understandings of the need for adaptability within their respective partnerships, and acknowledgement of differences between community and academic roles in community-engaged research projects are also presented. Finally, the effects of large groups and imbalanced stakes on projects, and the influence of class-oriented timelines are discussed. The manuscript is written by, and from the perspective of Thomas Armitage, one of the students in the graduate course, in collaboration Leah Levac, the course instructor.Â
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 | 0.934 | 0.741 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.773 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.858 |
| 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