The Perspective of Undergraduate Research Participant Pool Nonparticipants
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
Undergraduate research participant pools play an essential role in facilitating research, and many universities rely on them for participant recruitment. There is an abundance of information about those who do elect to participate in research through these recruitment systems but very little about those who do not. The present study examines both undergraduate research pool participants and nonparticipants, and the objective is to explore how they differ in their views. A sample of 483 Canadian undergraduate students ( n = 442 participants and n = 41 nonparticipants) completed measures of their impressions of participation, their perceived enjoyment, and their knowledge gained from participating in research and asked to compare this with their impressions of attending class and taking exams. Factorial analysis of variance and χ 2 results found support for both similarities and differences between both groups. Overall, the results suggest that nonparticipants do not have a good understanding of what is involved in participating in research activities and view it is a potentially aversive or negative experience.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it