Putting student partnership and collaboration centre-stage in a research-led context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this case study, we evaluated the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) initiative at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU), an extracurricular programme that focuses on academic staff-student partnerships and collaborations. While not directly integrated into university degree programmes, SURF provides students with the opportunity to develop practical research skills related to knowledge they have acquired in class. Participating students receive an authentic research experience, which involves collaboration on research projects with academic staff. All students are required to present results of their projects at a public poster presentation event organised by the university. This case study is a partnership between Academic Enhancement Centre (AEC) staff, who organize and run SURF, SURF students, and a lecturer (M.B.N. Kouwenhoven), and it presents a reflection on their experiences of the SURF programme, and in particular on the notions of partnership and collaboration and the potential tension between those two concepts.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".