University work-study programs transitioning from student employment opportunities to student-faculty partnerships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cook-Sather (2014) describes student-faculty pedagogical partnerships as a reciprocal collaboration where partners contribute equally, albeit in different ways, to the investigation, analysis, and implementation of curriculum or pedagogy.This partnership can vary in different contexts from curricular consultation to extra-curricular projects, and collaborative pedagogical research (Cook-Sather, 2014).The goal of student-faculty partnerships is to move away from the hierarchical nature of post-secondary institutions to engage students in a more collegial and holistic understanding of education and research (Healey et al., 2016).Students benefit from relationships outside of the classroom to support their personal and professional success (Tobolwsky et al., 2020).However, not surprisingly, power-sharing relationships between faculty and students can be difficult to navigate due to the institutional roles inherent in postsecondary institutions (Marquis et al., 2016;Seale et al., 2015).Student-faculty research partnerships are different from work-study programs, where post-secondary institutions across Ontario, Canada
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".