Attended the Society for College and University Planning: Global Perspectives, Local Strategies Conference in Montreal, QC, July 19-23, 2008
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The conference (1,400 including 120 from Canada) dealt primarily with space planning but there were academic planning sessions throughout as well that I attended. I was particularly focused on learning as much as possible regarding the Middle States accreditation review process since AU will begin our first review work in earnest in September. To that end I attended a special Middles States workshop and met the presenters as well as others, asking questions and seeking advice. I also took advantage of other academic planning sessions to network with others and ask questions regarding the process and received unofficial advice. I then prepared a summary of what I learned including names and contact information of people I met and provided it to the AU team leads. I also learned about other academic planning topics including program divestment, process recommendations, collaboration techniques etc and have contacted the appropriate people at AU regarding lessons learned and possible next steps. Much of the information was particularly timely as the provincial government unrolls the new Roles and Mandates process and institutional requirements; it will feed into several activities and meetings I am involved in over the next few months. The most applicable of these was a presentation by the U of A regarding their planning processes and their impact on the Ministry; there will be several concrete lessons learned there for my work and others in my office. Several sessions related to academic program reviews, a process I am very involved in through my AU program review Self Study coordination and authorship. I learned some useful information and gained new perspectives. \n•\tOne of the American University VPs spoke about lessons learned from their DE distributed workforce so I passed along several observations accordingly – another timely topic (especially in light of AUFA’s current discussions). \n•\tI was able to meet several Canadian university colleagues, furthering my networking opportunities for future consultation and reference. I was able to maximize the resources available to me; I attended something at almost every opportunity (and there were a lot of opportunities!), found my own (much cheaper) hotel, took the airport shuttle, and generally tried to keep expenses down. \n \nIn sum: it was very beneficial for me to attend in light of AU’s pending Middle States review. It was also useful to gather general planning ideas as we add a new University planning requirement. However, in order to decide if I should attend in future I will need to find out the mix of academic planning sessions vis-à-vis space planning sessions. Several people there suggested that I could present something in future regarding DE-related activities that I/we have been involved in, which I will consider as well. I know one of the presenters from the U of A so could seek advice from him.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».