Not just a phase: Exploring the role of program stage on well-being and motivation in doctoral students
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
Doctoral students’ well-being and motivation are important factors that are both shaped by, and shape students’ academic experiences in their programs. Existing literature consistently highlights the concerning well-being and maladaptive motivational patterns in doctoral students, but no research to date attempted to explore some of the structural features associated with these wellness and achievement factors in a large-scale study. The present study examined whether doctoral program phase (i.e. coursework, comprehensive examination, or dissertation phase had an effect on 3004 doctoral students’ well-being levels (stress, depression, program satisfaction, and illness symptoms) and motivation (self-determined motivation and self-efficacy). Results revealed doctoral students to report the highest well-being and internal motivation during the coursework phase, while the comprehensive examination phase was found to be the most challenging for most students as indicated by the lowest wellness and motivation scores. A discussion of the present results and their theoretical and practical implications ensues.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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