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 OpenAlexaboutno aff

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0310.041
Scholarly communication0.0220.016
Open science0.0040.019
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgarySame topicDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsFrench-language works237,207