“I feel like some students are better connected”: Students’ perspectives on applying for extracurricular partnership opportunities
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
While existing research has discussed the need for student-faculty partnership opportunities to be inclusive and accessible, attention to students’ motivations for participating in extracurricular partnership activities, and to their sense of the relative accessibility of such opportunities, has been limited. The present study, designed and conducted by students and faculty working in partnership, aimed to address this gap in the literature by exploring how students at a Canadian research-intensive university with a centrally-supported Student Partners Program perceive extracurricular partnership opportunities and the process of applying for them. Drawing from survey and focus group data, we describe students’ motivations for taking part in student-staff partnership initiatives and their sense of the program features that enable and constrain students’ participation. Implications of these findings for practitioners and researchers interested in Students as Partners are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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