MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735592995 · doi:10.1080/02103702.2017.1341102

Re-thinking the dissertation and doctoral supervision / Reflexiones sobre la tesis doctoral y su supervisión

2017· article· es· W2735592995 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.

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

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Education and Development Infancia y Aprendizaje · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApprenticeshipDoctoral dissertationObstacleOddsSociologyPedagogyPolitical scienceHigher educationPhilosophyComputer scienceLinguisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The doctoral dissertation is the final obstacle for most apprentice scholars. This paper considers the place and purpose of the dissertation and argues that it no longer provides an adequate preparation for the types of work that PhD graduates will do within and outside the academy. The common dissertation format — book length, single-authored, print-based — is at odds with a world where knowledge is made collaboratively and disseminated digitally. Moreover, the effort required to produce a dissertation keeps students from writing the many other genres of academic discourse, and reduces the opportunities that supervisors have to mentor new scholars. The paper finishes by offering a number of alternatives to the traditional dissertation and examines the barriers to implementing those alternatives.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.338 · 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