Postdoctoral scholars’ perspectives about professional learning and development: a concurrent mixed-methods study
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
Abstract Postdoctoral scholars pursue diverse career paths requiring broad skill sets; however, little is known about postdoctoral scholars’ perspectives about their professional learning, and development needs. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to identify current professional learning and development opportunities used by postdoctoral scholars to obtain the required broad skills sets of value for a changing career landscape. A concurrent mixed-methods design was utilized including a cross sectional survey and qualitative interviews. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis; quantitative and qualitative findings were then triangulated for convergent themes. Key findings indicate that although postdoctoral scholars engage in a variety of professional learning, the perceived usefulness of these sessions varies widely, and the types of professional learning and development that they engage in, may not best support the realities of their future careers. Given the significant resources often required to support professional learning and development initiatives, a deeper understanding and alignment of postdoctoral scholars needs with provided opportunities may help to ensure scarce resources are invested in the most useful and effective strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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