Developing a Biomedical Stakeholder Café: Process, Development, Implementation and Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing and facilitating opportunities for students to engage with stakeholders in ways that are meaningful and educational is challenging in academic settings. This work presents a student-stakeholder interactional model designed as an event to support upper-year engineering students during the needs assessment phase of the design process. Key elements of this model include stakeholder recruitment, student design team applications, student-stakeholder matching, preparatory student workshop, and student-stakeholder conversations. Additional critical considerations include financial support, event logistics, and scheduling and coordination of stakeholders and students. This model was implemented successfully in Fall 2023 as the Biomedical Stakeholder Café that supported over 100 students within 23 teams to connect with stakeholders. Model elements, including applications and preparatory workshop, addressed known issues with facilitating student-stakeholder interactions including students developing goals and successfully interacting with stakeholders. Organizational challenges related to time commitment and long-term funding are an area of on-going work and consideration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".