MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Completing the Research Cycle: A Framework for Promoting Dissemination of Undergraduate Research and Inquiry

2013· article· en· W4248768289 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching & Learning Inquiry The ISSOTL Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisseminationUndergraduate researchPromotion (chess)CurriculumInformation DisseminationAutonomyPublic relationsMedical educationPolitical sciencePsychologyPedagogyComputer scienceMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rise of undergraduate research and inquiry (UGRI) in higher education, it is important to provide students with opportunities to disseminate their research. This completes the research cycle and builds key communication skills. In this article we develop a framework for the dissemination of UGRI, linking exposure to the development of student autonomy. We illustrate the framework with case studies ranging from dissemination activities within the curriculum, such as poster presentations and journal clubs, through to UGRI journals, conferences and product launches. Finally we consider how institutions can promote and support the dissemination of UGRI. To avoid reliance on individuals, institutions should invest in appropriate infrastructure, such as an undergraduate research office, to ensure long-term support for UGR I and the promotion of dissemination activities.

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 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)0.127
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1270.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.007
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 head0.334
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.225 · 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