Building a national network of student leaders in gerontology: Reflections on the student representative program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Association on Gerontology's Student Connection facilitates a national Student Representative program to promote the field of gerontology at local post-secondary institutions. Student Representatives are expected to host professional development and networking events on their campus to bring together students interested in the field of aging. Student-run groups help foster interest in aging-related careers and research, yet few studies explore how these groups are developed and sustained. As part of this quality improvement project, we examined (1) who participates as a Student Representative; (2) why students choose to participate in the program; and (3) how Student Representatives fulfil their role (including barriers and facilitators). We conclude with a discussion of the challenges that the Student Connection's executive committee has faced supporting this national network and identify opportunities to further enhance the program. Practical implications to support student engagement and promote sustainability of student-driven aginginterest groups are outlined.
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 | 0.045 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".