Focusing on the Development of the Whole Student: An International Comparative Study of the Perceived Benefits of Peer Leadership in Higher Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student engagement in leadership activities in higher education is becoming increasingly popular and is considered to contribute to the development of the “whole student”. To compare and contrast the ways student peer leaders/educators experience the benefits across different countries, and how this can be useful in cross-cultural/national interpretation and adaptation of lessons learned, a survey was conducted in six different English-speaking countries in the world. This paper presents some of the findings related to the combined dataset of all countries, as well as a comparison between the different countries. The findings overall did provide reasonably similar results across countries as well as some minor differences. Overall, the survey respondents did report increased benefits in various realms including a range of academic and employability skills, interaction with peers, desire to persist and graduate and some other outcomes. Considering the increase in interest related to students’ wellbeing, we also explored the potential impact on aspects related to wellbeing. The findings suggest that participation in leadership activities seems to benefit various aspects of students’ wellbeing.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it