Habilidades Investigativas e Investigación Formativa c on los Estudiantes de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Chota (Unach)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La presente investigaci´on se refiere al desarrollo de Habilidades Investigativas a trav´es de la aplicaci´on de la Investigaci´on Formativa, seg´un diversos tipos, en los estudiantes de las Escuelas Profesionales de Enfermer´ıa, Contabilidad, Ingenier´ıa Civil, Ingenier´ıa Agroindustrial e Ingenier´ıa Forestal y Ambiental de la UNACH, de reciente creaci´on, provincia de Chota-Cajamarca. En el estudio participaron 912 estudiantes de los Semestres 2014-I, Ciclos I y II y 2014-II, Ciclos I, II y III, para desarrollar habilidades investigativas, elaborando, presentando, sustentando y aprobando un trabajo de investigaci´on, Investigaci´on Bibliogr´afica (I), Investigaci´on Monogr´afica (II), Investigaci´on Estad´ıstica/Estudio de Casos (III), ante un Jurado Evaluador especialmente designado por la Comisi´on Organizadora de la UNACH, sobre un tema derivado de la materia eje de la Carrera, con una estrategia especial. El desarrollo de habilidades investigativas estuvo indicado por el resultado de la Ficha de Evaluaci´on aplicada por el Jurado durante la sustentaci´on al finalizar cada Semestre Acad´emico, constituy´endose en base para la investigaci´on estricta con la finalidad de obtener el t´ıtulo profesional correspondiente. Result´o relevante que los estudiantes desde el Ciclo I de estudios hablen y apliquen la norma APA, Vancouver, consideren protocolos de investigaci´on, formato de presentaci´on, citas bibliogr´aficas y referencias bibliogr´aficas, que adem´as repercuti´o en el aprendizaje de las materias de su carrera profesional, aprovechando los recursos bibliogr´aficos de la UNACH y el internet y gradualmente el uso de las bases de datos.
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 | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".