Students Speak Out: The Impact of Participation in an Undergraduate Research Journal
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
Universities are places where writing plays a central role in knowledge creation and dissemination (Graves, 2011). Students engage with writing in their courses, at their institution’s Writing Centre, and, perhaps more recently, in co-curricular projects such as an undergraduate research journal club. By participating in an undergraduate journal club, students develop critical thinking skills (Roberts, 2009), learn skills in research (Sandefur & Gordy, 2016), and produce knowledge (Neville, Power, Barnes, & Haynes, 2012). In this paper, we explore the impact of participation in a particular undergraduate research journal, the Undergraduate Journal of the Arts1 (UJA), on students’ interactions with academic writing. To do so, we first surveyed the landscape of undergraduate research journals in Canada. We then conducted an online survey and interviewed the UJA’s authors, editors, reviewers, and management board members. Our findings show that regardless of the roles they held at the UJA, participants benefitted from participation in terms of the development of their writing, interpersonal, and communication skills. We also discovered that participants faced time management constraints but were able to turn these obstacles into an opportunity to gain time management skills. Overall, our research has contributed to a sparse area of literature on undergraduate research journals. It also shows the value of an undergraduate research journal for student development.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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