Faculty preparation for academic evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
At most universities in North America, the evaluation of a faculty member’s academic activities is generally performed by a committee consisting of senior academics and elected representatives. The Department of Medicine at the University of Alberta developed an academic promotions workshop for its faculty members, who include clinician-teachers/educators, clinician-investigators and basic scientists. A number of faculty members, both junior and senior, are poorly informed regarding the requirements for academic evaluation, the role of the Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC), and how they should document their scholarly activities for promotion and tenure purposes. A half-day promotion workshop was developed and implemented. Workshop participants are provided with explicit information regarding the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry’s evaluation promotion and tenure guidelines. Templates for both a ‘clinical dossier’ and an ‘administrative dossier’ demonstrate how academic scholarship in these domains might be presented. The workshop participants then assume the role of an FEC to review three fictitious faculty applications, of which two are assessed for tenure and promotion to associate professorship and one for promotion to full professorship. Of the tenure applicants, one is a clinician-teacher and the other is a basic scientist. The professorial candidate is a clinician-investigator. The cases presented are not model applications, but, rather, applications likely to evoke discussion. In addition to the workshop participants, the mock FEC includes senior faculty ‘plants’ who provide critical assessments of the documentation. Existing chairs and senior administrators play the roles of the presenting department. After discussing the applications, the mock FEC, using secret ballots, makes a recommendation for or against promotion. Since 2000 the Department of Medicine has offered this workshop once or twice yearly. Increasingly, requests from other departments have been accommodated and the workshop has evolved to a Faculty-wide endeavour. To date, 148 individuals from 19 departments have participated, with a 70 : 30 ratio of assistant : associate professors. Ratings have been uniformly positive, with all evaluating participants recommending the workshop. Comments from participants reflect the quality and relevance of the workshop: ‘…very useful to hear the “planted” criticisms…’ ‘…reinforced how critical documentation is … emphasised how scholarly work is viewed by others...’ ‘…should be [a] mandatory part of the introduction of new faculty…’ ‘…wish I had done this sooner…’ and ‘…I have a much better idea how to prepare junior divisional members. I would recommend they all go through this before their third year assessment.’ This workshop has proven to be useful to faculty members, divisional directors and departmental chairs. It has allowed participants to more objectively assess the scholarly contributions required for academic promotion and to understand how to present their contributions for assessment by others.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,096 | 0,247 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,212 | 0,096 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».