MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981847326 · doi:10.1177/0034523719882455

How does a sense of belonging develop in postsecondary? A conceptual Belonging in Academia Model (BAM) from sighted perspectives

2019· article· en· W2981847326 on OpenAlex
Minnie Teng, Mary-Lou Brown, Tal Jarus, Laura Yvonne Bulk

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)Focus groupPerceptionGrounded theoryPsychologySociologySocial psychologyPedagogyQualitative researchSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Belonging is associated with increased engagement in academic pursuits and well-being. However, there is a lack of research on how a sense of belonging develops in academia. The academic environment comprises largely of sighted individuals. Exploring sighted students, staff, and educators’ perceptions of belonging contributes to our understanding of environments that foster belonging for sighted individuals and their perceptions of the same for people who are blind. We conducted focus groups and in-depth interviews with 25 sighted people in academia to investigate how sense of belonging develops for them, and what facilitators and barriers would impact belonging in academia. Grounded theory was used to construct the Belonging in Academia Model (BAM), which explores how people perceive, create, and develop belonging in academia.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.368 · 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