Identifying Strengths and Challenges in Interdisciplinary Graduate Supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster introduces the methodology and presents preliminary results from a pilot study of faculty, student, and administrator perspectives on graduate supervision in an interdisciplinary environment. The research team surveyed doctoral students and conducted in-depth interviews, focus groups, and reflective exercises with graduate students and faculty at one Canadian university.Cette affiche présente la méthodologie et les résultats préliminaires d’une étude pilote auprès de professeurs, d’étudiants et d’administrateurs quant à leurs perspectives sur la supervision d’étudiants en contexte interdisciplinaire. Les chercheurs ont sondé des doctorants et ont mené des entrevues en profondeur, des groupes de discussion et des exercices de réflexion avec des étudiants et des professeurs d’une université canadienne.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.151 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".