Challenges in Undergraduate Synthetic Biology Training: Insights from a Canadian iGEM Student Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The last two decades have seen vigorous activity in synthetic biology research and ever-increasing applications of synthetic biology technologies. However, pedagogical research on synthetic biology is scarce, especially when compared to some scientific and engineering disciplines. Within Canada, there are only three universities that formally teach synthetic biology programs; two of which are at the undergraduate level. Many Canadian undergraduate students are instead introduced to synthetic biology through participation in the annual International Genetically Engineered Machine (iGEM) competition where they work in design teams to conceive of and execute a synthetic biology project that they present at an international jamboree. We surveyed the Canadian landscape of synthetic biology education through the experience of students from the Canadian iGEM teams of 2019. Using a thematic codebook analysis, we gathered insights to generate recommendations that could empower future iGEM team operations and inform educators about best practices in teaching undergraduate synthetic biology.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".