MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105628899 · doi:10.15516/cje.v19i0.2709

Doctoral Education for a Sustainable Future: What's a Comprehensive Portfolio Got to Do With It? / Doktorsko obrazovanje za održivu budućnost: Što sveobuhvatni portfelj ima s tim?

2018· article· en· W3105628899 on OpenAlexaffabout
Snežana Ratković, Vera Woloshyn

Bibliographic record

VenueCroatian Journal of Education - Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanje · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioPolitical sciencePedagogySociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractIn this paper, we introduce a Joint PhD Program in Educational Studies taught jointly by three universities in Ontario Canada, discuss the role of the comprehensive portfolio in research education, and share our vision for sustainable doctoral education and a sustainable future locally, nationally, and internationally. We debate the importance of the comprehensive portfolio for student retention, the development of the 21st century learning skills, mentoring, self-as-scholar competences, and holistic doctoral education. We explore foundational questions: What works? What does not work? What is missing? Finally, we conclude with critical reflections and recommendations for doctoral-level studies with reference to key stakeholders including graduate students, mentors, curriculum developers, doctoral program directors, and policy makers.Key words: Canada; holistic doctoral education; mentoring; PhD in education; 21st century learning---Sažetak U ovom radu predstavljamo Zajednički Ph.D. Program iz obrazovnih studija koji održavaju tri sveučilišta u Ontariu, Kanada, raspravljamo o ulozi sveobuhvatnog portfelja u obrazovanju istraživača i opisujemo našu viziju održivog doktorskog obrazovanja i održive budućnosti na lokalnoj, nacionalnoj i međunarodnoj razini. Raspravljamo o važnosti sveobuhvatnog portfelja za zadržavanje studenata u doktorskim programima, razvoj vještina učenja za 21. stoljeće, mentorstvo, kompetencije pojedinca kao znanstvenika i holističko doktorsko obrazovanje. Istražili smo temeljna pitanja: Što funkcionira? Što ne funkcionira? Što nedostaje? Na kraju, zaključujemo s kritičnim razmišljanjima i preporukama na razini doktorskih studija, kao i s obzirom na interese ključnih sudionika, uključujući studente, mentore, dizajnere nastavnog plana i programa, voditelje doktorskih programa i kreatore zakona i uredbi doktorskih studija.Ključne riječi: holističko doktorsko obrazovanje; Kanada, mentorstvo; doktorat u obrazovanju; učenje u 21. stoljeću.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCroatian Journal of Education - Hrvatski časopis za odgoj i obrazovanjeSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207