Positive Academic Supervision: A Case Study in a Tourism Undergraduate Course at a Public University in the State of Paraná, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report of experience describes took place in the academic context and aimed to study the relationship between an academic advisor and their student. The research problem emerged from the positive and negative experiences of two of the authors, during their timeas students under supervision at the university. In 2018, these authors had the opportunity, as advisors, to apply techniques to carry out positive supervision. The objective of this report was to present positive experiences of academic supervision for the production of a thesis for the undergraduate course of Tourism of a public university in the state of Paraná, Brazil. This study was carried out in 2018, and involved the supervision of two students, with thirteen steps, as described in this report. The results of the supervision were two undergraduate theses that were approved and received praise, and two students who were satisfied with the process. As practical implications, we observed that when the advisor and student are bothclear as to the student's role as the protagonist of the process, the teaching-learning process generates results in terms of knowledge construction and application of this knowledge in the studied context. Thus, positive supervision can improve the student's professional and/or social context. In the cases studied here, the students and their advisors worked together from the start of development of the undergraduate thesis; and shared their empirical and scientific knowledge.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".