MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410705339 · doi:10.29173/cais1956

Soft Skills are Important in Doctoral Degree Program

2025· article· en· W4410705339 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dinesh Rathi, Jennifer Branch-Mueller

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSI · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegree (music)Soft skillsComputer scienceMathematics educationPsychologyPhysicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doctoral students need both hard skills (i.e., technical skills) and soft skills (i.e., social skills) to manage their learning journey and to succeed in their program of study. The paper presents findings from a qualitative study conducted with doctoral students enrolled in one of the Canadian U15 universities and studying in diverse doctoral degree programs. The study presents findings from the experiential reflection of doctoral students on the use of soft skills to succeed in their program of study. The participating students suggested a range of “non-academic” skills (i.e., soft skills) that were important in their learning journey such as communication, time management, conflict management, stress management, expectation management, work ethics, self- discipline and motivation, power navigation and others. This research aims to identify a wide range of soft skills that doctoral students need to move successfully in their program of study and contribute to the growing body of literature in the area of soft skills, particularly in the context of doctoral students and their programs. Les compétences relationnelles en contexte d'études doctorales : Une réflexion par des étudiants au doctorat RésuméLes étudiants au doctorat ont besoin à la fois de connaissances spécialisées et de compétences relationnelles pendant leur programme d'étude. Une étude qualitative a été faite auprès d'étudiants au doctorat dans une des universités canadiennes U15. Les résultats présentés dans cette affiche sont la réflection expérientielle d'étudiants au doctorat. Les étudiants au doctorat participants ont laissé entendre qu'ils avaient besoin d'une variété de compétences relationnelles, incluant la communication, la gestion du temps, la gestion des conflits, la gestion du stress, la gestion des attentes, l'éthique de travail, la discipline, la navigation du pouvoir, la motivation intrinsèque, ainsi que d'autres compétences. Cette étude vise à contribuer au nombre grandissant de littérature portant sur les compétences relationnelles plus précisément appliquée au contexte des étudiants au doctorat et le besoin pour diverses compétences relationnelles dans leur parcours d'apprentissage. Mots-cléscompétences relationnelles; étudiants au doctorat; milieu universitaire; programme de doctorat

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l ACSISame topicHigher Education and EmployabilityFrench-language works237,207