Design and execution of remote structured programming for students’ summer undergraduate research experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undergraduate research in science is recognized for fostering positive professional and personal development. Several studies have revealed these gains to be accomplished when research work is embedded in a structured setting, with additional programming. This research examines the implementation of remote programming in the Amgen Scholars Canada Program (ASCP), a structured summer undergraduate research experience at the University of Toronto. This program incorporates non-lab-based components, such as scientific talks, professional development training, mentoring sessions, and social activities. We also investigate students’ reception of such a structured program in a virtual format. We conducted focus groups with 2021 ASCP participants to evaluate students’ perceptions of the program and its effect on their personal/professional development, as well as career trajectory. We conducted thematic analysis on transcripts using nVIVO software, ensuring reliability through independent coding. Despite facing challenges in the virtual setting, students highlighted several advantages from the scientific talk and professional development series, notably in the development of soft skills, exposure to diverse research fields, and the shaping of career aspirations. The virtual environment was also acknowledged for promoting flexibility in programming. Mentorship, both from faculty and graduate students, emerged as a significant factor in enhancing research competency. Additionally, social activities played a crucial role in fostering a sense of community, particularly beneficial for underrepresented groups. This study underscores the value of non-laboratory elements in summer research programs, showing they enhance students’ overall learning experience in the remote setting. The adaptability to a virtual format improves accessibility and reduces costs, potentially increasing scalability in resource-constrained situations. Ongoing research tracking the career trajectories of Amgen Scholars aims to reveal the enduring impact of structured research programs on students' professional paths.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".