MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7014366016

Perspectives on Research Assessment in Architecture, Music and the Arts. Discussing Doctorateness

2017· article· en· W7014366016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDoctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe artsVisionCompetence (human resources)Section (typography)Quality (philosophy)Creative brief
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research in the creative fields of architecture, design, music and the arts has experienced dynamic development for over two decades. The research in these practice and arts based fields has become increasingly mature, but has also led to various discussions on what constitutes doctoral proficiency in these fields. The term ‘doctorateness’ is often used when referring to the assessment of the production of doctoral research and the research competence of research students, but in architecture and the arts the concept of doctorateness has not yet attained a clearly articulated definition. The assessment of quality has been practiced by way of supervising, mentoring and the evaluation of dissertations, but much less discussed.\n\nThis book offers perspectives on how to qualify and assess research in architecture, music and the arts. It creates a broader arena for discussion on doctorateness by establishing a framework for its application to creative fields. The book is grouped into three sections and includes contributions from international experts in the various fields, working in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK. The first section offers general frameworks for further conceptualising doctorateness in the fields in question. It is followed by a section that describes and discusses various experiences, concerns and visions on the production and assessment of doctoral research reporting from doctoral programmes in different stages of development. The third section includes future-oriented perspectives on knowledge-building processes, and asks how the ongoing, profound changes in academia could influence the concept of quality in both doctoral process and product. \n\nThe book presents different perspectives on research assessment practices and developments of relevant criteria in the practice-based and creative fields of architecture and the arts. The contributions propose ways of framing this issue conceptually, show the need for awareness of the specific context and tradition programmes develop and give proposals for various potential trajectories for the future.\n

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.494
GPT teacher head0.641
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDoctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsFrench-language works237,207