20 years of choices: a fight for increased funding for graduate students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After 20 years of stagnation, federal scholarships have finally been increased within the new budget of the Canadian government. Tuition fees, inflation, and costs of living kept rising, which has resulted a rising number of graduate students in the life sciences living below poverty line, despite working far more than 40 h a week on science research in Canada. This does not only negatively affect the students research projects and thus science and innovation in Canada, but also their downstream decisions on whether to continue a research career in Canada and what jobs and economic endeavors to pursue. Graduate students are not just a line item in the budgets of universities, but integral for science and innovation, as well as the future high-quality personnel of the country. This importance should be reflected in all stipends and salaries of graduate students, not just the ones with a government scholarship.
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 | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".