How to set the agenda for training in responsible conduct of research using the target audience as a narrative guide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing interest in training on responsible conduct of research (RCR). The availability and range of such training materials, for a diversity of audiences and addressing a diversity of RCR related topics, is growing too. This is of great help to all who are looking for materials to set up their RCR training, but how can one select what topics to include within the often-limited time available for training? In this paper we propose a step-by-step approach to set the agenda for RCR training, using the target audience as a narrative guide. The process consists of six steps: (1) mapping the needs and translating them into learning objectives; (2) prioritizing, selecting, and combining objectives and themes; (3) demarcation of the training; (4) completion of the program; (5) development or adaptation of training materials; and (6) pilot and evaluation. The development process of a training program for researchers in Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences is used as an example to illustrate the step-by-step process.
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 | 0.239 | 0.222 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".