MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126401521 · doi:10.21742/ijaner.2020.5.2.02

Working with Research Assistants: Guidelines for Mutually Beneficial Relationships

2020· article· en· W3126401521 on OpenAlexaff
Rose McCloskey, Kathryn Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Nursing Education and Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultitudeFeelingMedical educationPsychologyFace (sociological concept)PedagogySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faculty members can face a multitude of demands as they strive to advance through the ranks in academia. The need to demonstrate proficiency in research, teaching, and service can be overwhelming and leave faculty feeling conflicted about where to direct their efforts. By utilizing research assistantships, faculty can receive support to advance their programs of research while simultaneously positioning themselves as effective teachers and agents of the university. In this paper, we discuss the role faculty play in research assistants' development and offer guidelines to facilitate successful research assistantships.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.718
GPT teacher head0.658
Teacher spread0.060 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Advanced Nursing Education and ResearchSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207