A multidisciplinary STEM and liberal arts students-as-partners project promoted the development of employability skills and embodied partnership values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have explored student perceptions of participating in STEM multidisciplinary students-as-partners (SaP) projects integrated into the curriculum. We conducted content analysis on focus groups to determine partner perceptions of a STEM and liberal arts SaP project and used a mixed methods concurrent triangulation design to explore the degree to which partners thought the underpinning SaP values had been enacted. Four staff and seven students participated in the study. Perceptions of the project were aligned to four themes: outstanding student experience, development of student employability skills, a transformative change in the student-to-staff relationship, and barriers to success and enabling strategies. Qualitative and quantitative data indicated strong inclusion of the partnership values. This paper provides new insights into STEM and liberal arts SaP projects, indicating they may be well-suited to the embodiment of the underpinning SaP values, and help students prepare for the world of work.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".