MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950446885 · doi:10.22230/src.2019v10n3a337

Utilizing a Journal Club to Build Research Competencies in a Cross-Disciplinary Environment

2019· article· en· W2950446885 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Joanne Wincentak, Stephanie T. Cheung, Shauna Kingsnorth

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly and Research Communication · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersBloorview Research InstituteHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital Foundation
KeywordsLibrary scienceClubDisciplineJournal clubPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyMedical educationArtSocial scienceComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The goal of this process-focused field note is to detail the steps taken to design and implement the pilot of a cross-disciplinary research-trainee-led journal club within a hospital-based research institute.Analysis The journal club was designed to support learning goals in the areas of critical appraisal, research knowledge, and communication within a cross-disciplinary environment. The evaluation data for the three pilot sessions are presented, and successes and challenges are discussed.Conclusion and implications Recommendations for institutes interested in the implementation of similar programs focused on research competencies within a cross-disciplinary setting are given.
 Keywords Knowledge dissemination; Tools and practices; Journal club; Research training; Interdisciplinary communication; Program development
 Résumé
 Le but de cette note de terrain est de détailler les étapes de la conception et exécution du pilote d’un club de lecture scientifique interdisciplinaire dirigé par des étudiants au sein d’un institut de recherche en milieu hospitalier. Le club de lecture a été conçu pour soutenir des objectifs d’apprentissage relevant des domaines de l’analyse critique, du savoir, et de la communication de recherche au sein d’un environnement interdisciplinaire. Les données d’évaluation pour les trois sessions pilotes sont présentées dans cet article et les succès et défis discutés. Des recommandations sont faites pour les instituts intéressés par l’exécution de programmes similaires axés sur des compétences de recherche dans un cadre interdisciplinaire. 
 Mots clés Knowledge dissemination: Tools and practices; Journal club; Research training; Interdisciplinary communication; Program 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.420
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly and Research CommunicationSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207