Remote doctoral supervision experiences:Challenges and affordances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution examines from the points of view of supervisor and of doctoral candidates how supervision manifests itself in times when many study-related interactions take place at a distance. In doing so, challenges and affordances, and effective practices are considered. The presentation draws on a literature review synthesising insights on intellectual/cognitive; instrumental; ontological; professional and personal/emotional aspects of supervision. Throughout the pandemic, remote supervision has merged, and sometimes confused the professional and the private (research and writing are now carried out from home), the home and the institution (the home becomes a proxy of the institution in a very tangible manner), and the physical and the digital (the digital being now predominant and no longer peripheral). It is not until now that academics on a broad scale have engaged in remote supervision, and the need to understand this activity is greater than ever before.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".