MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6922283881 · doi:10.11575/ajer.v59i1.55678

Fulfilling an ethical obligation: An educative research assistantship

2013· article· en· W6922283881 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupervisorStudy abroadPostgraduate researchField (mathematics)Research methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scant research evidence is available about the day-to-day workings of research assistantships or the educational possibilities they provide for research assistants and their academic supervisors. This case study documents the equitable, educative, and ethical nature of one research assistantship at a Canadian university. Data sources include audio recordings and transcripts from 24 research meetings, along with field notes and textual documents gathered over 8 months as the research assistant and academic supervisor designed, conducted, and presented an interview-based study. Evidence shows the academic supervisor supported the research assistant as she learned research skills and developed confidence as a researcher. The case study provides a potential model of an equitable, educative, and ethical research assistantship for the consideration of other research assistants and academic supervisors. Il existe peu de données de recherche portant sur les activités quotidiennes qu’impliquent les assistanats à la recherche ou sur les possibilités éducatives qu’ils offrent aux assistants à la recherche et à leurs superviseurs académiques. Cette étude de cas évoque la nature équitable, éducative et éthique d’un assistanat à la recherche dans une université canadienne. Les sources de données comprennent des enregistrements et des transcriptions audio de 24 réunions de recherche, des notes d’observation sur le terrain et des textes recueillis au cours de 8 mois pendant lesquels l’assistante à la recherche et le superviseur académique ont conçu, entrepris et présenté une étude reposant sur les entrevues. Des données probantes indiquent que le superviseur a appuyé l’assistante à la recherche pendant qu’elle acquérait des compétences de recherche et prenait confiance en elle comme chercheuse. Cette étude de cas constitue un modèle potentiel d’assistanat à la recherche équitable, éducatif et éthique que pourraient examiner d’autres assistants à la recherche et superviseurs académiques.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.402
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.153 · 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