MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600935272 · doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9883-5

America COMPETES at 5 years: An Analysis of Research-Intensive Universities’ RCR Training Plans

2017· article· en· W2600935272 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Engineering Ethics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignStony Brook UniversityOregon State UniversityMontana State UniversityGeorgia State UniversityDartmouth CollegeYork UniversityUniversity of RochesterGeorgetown UniversityUniversity of Central FloridaJohns Hopkins UniversityBrandeis UniversityColorado State UniversityUniversity of ConnecticutVirginia Commonwealth UniversityTulane UniversityBrown UniversityArizona State UniversityState University of New YorkLouisiana State UniversityGeorge Washington UniversityCalifornia Institute of TechnologyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyOhio State UniversityRice UniversityRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteFlorida State UniversityYale UniversityVanderbilt UniversityUniversity of OklahomaWashington University in St. LouisUniversity at BuffaloMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCity University of New YorkIowa State UniversityCarnegie Mellon UniversityNorth Carolina State UniversityPurdue UniversityCase Western Reserve UniversityNational Science FoundationMississippi State UniversityEmory UniversityHarvard University
KeywordsPhilosophy of scienceTraining (meteorology)Medical educationBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project evaluates the impact of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) policy to promote education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). To determine whether this policy resulted in meaningful RCR educational experiences, our study examined the instructional plans developed by individual universities in response to the mandate. Using a sample of 108 U.S. institutions classified as Carnegie "very high research activity", we analyzed all publicly available NSF RCR training plans in light of the consensus best practices in RCR education that were known at the time the policy was implemented. We found that fewer than half of universities developed plans that incorporated at least some of the best practices. More specifically, only 31% of universities had content and requirements that differed by career stage, only 1% of universities had content and requirements that differed by discipline; and only 18% of universities required some face-to-face engagement from all classes of trainees. Indeed, some schools simply provided hand-outs to their undergraduate students. Most universities (82%) had plans that could be satisfied with online programs such as the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative's RCR modules. The NSF policy requires universities to develop RCR training plans, but provides no guidelines or requirements for the format, scope, content, duration, or frequency of the training, and does not hold universities accountable for their training plans. Our study shows that this vaguely worded policy, and lack of accountability, has not produced meaningful educational experiences for most of the undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-doctoral trainees funded by the NSF.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Incentives · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptMetaresearchResearch integrity
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.236
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.216 · 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