Partnership through co-creation: Lessons learnt at the University of Adelaide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes three exemplars of practice inspired by emerging evidence that student-staff partnerships have the potential to significantly enhance many areas of higher education. Students and academics at the University of Adelaide have successfully implemented this collaborative approach across a range of learning and teaching contexts. The Design Thinking Framework, developed by the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University, was utilised at a faculty, program, and course level to frame each of the exemplars, due to its implicit approach to creativity, collaborative development, and achievement of solutions. The iterative nature of the framework facilitated a review cycle for continuous improvement in each Students-as-Partners’ initiative. Analysing the outcomes of each exemplar has identified common hallmarks of successful partnership, and these indicators have the potential to contribute to the growing body of evidence that defines best practice in this pedagogy
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".