Tightrope Walking: Balancing Leadership Roles and Partnerships with Undergraduate Student Assistants in SoTL Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this reflective essay, a researcher relates her experience of supporting partnerships with undergraduate student research assistants (RAs) during a SoTL study. Unexpected changes to the ethics requirements after the study had received approval and commenced resulted in changing the leadership roles of the research team members and adjusting procedures for facilitating interviews with the study participants. Although unsettling at the time, these modifications opened valuable opportunities for the RAs to co-facilitate focus group interviews and hone their leadership and research skills. Reflections on the researcher’s and a student RA’s experiences exemplify the SoTL principles of “respect, reciprocity, and shared responsibility” in supporting student partnerships (Cook-Sather et al., 2014, p. 27). Expanding further by recognizing rights as a principle promotes equal faculty-student research partnerships and acknowledges the knowledge, professional experience, and leadership skills that undergraduate student RAs contribute to SoTL studies and project work.
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 | 0.091 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".