Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the past quarter century, eloquent voices in the academy have articulated thevalue of hands on experiences in the workplace to reinforce and interrogate class-room learning. Internships and other types of fieldwork experiences enable students to test career options, improve their employment potential, challenge assumptions underlying theoretic approaches to the discipline, gain familiarity with the language and ethnography of the professional work places they plan to enter, and enlarge their sense of the role of research in their fields. A protracted experience that counterpoints theoretical and applied dimensions of a discipline can nurture critical habits of mind that will persist in the life of the full-time worker, making him or her a more valuable citizen of the profession.1 At Saint Xavier University in Chicago, Honors Fieldwork 350/351 is the central component of the program’s junior year. All students in the Honors Program engage in a junior year fieldwork experience that can take a wide range of forms, including a traditional internship, individual or group research under the direction of a faculty mentor, or applied projects designed to enhance learning in the student’s discipline.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".