Conversation, Collaboration, Credit: The Graduate Researcher in the Digital Scholarly Environment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The humanities are undergoing profound shifts in the nature of the processes used to produce scholarly work. As this migration to digital practices is increasingly accepted at universities and public institutions, such bodies have realised they must develop consistent policies governing the practice, implementation, and evaluation of digital scholarship. The formal debate about these processes in relation to faculty and administration is well underway. Similar discussions from the perspective of graduate students working on large-scale, collaborative digital projects has until now been limited to passing conversations at conferences and intradepartmental gestures, with occasional online discussions occurring in venues frequented by early career digital practitioners. This contribution revisits and rehearses, in textual form, issues raised and discussions had at a roundtable at the 2012 conference of the Canadian Society for Digital Humanities devoted to exploring the role of graduate students in the forming digital scholarly environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it