MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528043793 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2167

Avoiding the A.B.D. Abyss: A Grounded Theory Study of a Dissertation-Focused Course for Doctoral Students in an Educational Leadership Program

2016· article· en· W2528043793 on OpenAlex
Leslie Ann Locke, Melanie Boyle

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryPedagogyQualitative researchGraduation (instrument)PsychologyConceptual frameworkSociologyMedical educationEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than half of all graduate students drop out before graduation. Doctoral students often become mired in the “all but dissertation” (ABD) phase of the process. This grounded theory study focused on the perceptions and experiences of doctoral students in an educational leadership program, who were ABD, regarding their participation in a dissertation-focused intensive writing course called the Dissertation Boot Camp (DBC). Findings revealed participants had particular challenges with time, writing, and advisement. The DBC attended to many of these challenges by providing time, structure, encouragement, and support. Results of the study led to the development of a conceptual framework, which helps to better understand the complexities involved in a student’s pathway to ABD status.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.664
GPT teacher head0.712
Teacher spread0.048 · 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