MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6931065636 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3827550

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in the Canadian Astronomical Society in the Next Decade

2019· article· en· W6931065636 sur OpenAlexaffabout

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOral health in cancer treatment
Établissements canadiensOkanagan College
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGovernment (linguistics)White paperCommitInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)HarassmentProfessional associationWork (physics)General partnership

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) landscape in professional astronomy has evolved tremendously over the last decade, both in Canada and around the world. On one hand, revelations of systematic harassment of junior astronomers by their senior advisors or colleagues as well as studies demonstrating significant demographic biases in the peer review process have both made international headlines, illustrating just how much work remains to be done to achieve EDI in academia. On the other hand, increased awareness of EDI issues within professional organisations and governments worldwide has resulted in innovative new policies and program launches that may well lead to meaningful progress. Change is indeed underway in Canada as universities revise their ethics statements and codes of conduct, EDI-focused committees emerge to advise organisations such as the Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP) and the Canadian Astronomical Society (CASCA), and the federal government attaches requirements regarding EDI reporting and achievements to funding. This white paper addresses EDI considerations for CASCA in the next decade from the perspective of CASCA's Equity and Inclusivity Committee (EIC).We emphasize that the recommendations below are by no means exhaustive, but instead should be considered in conjunction with other EDI-related recommendations submitted as part of LRP 2020. The goal is that in aggregate, this and other white papers span the spectrum of EDI issues that are most relevant to Canadian astronomy in the next decade. We make the following recommendations: The CASCA Board should commit to creating and maintaining a comprehensive national database of its members.This database is of urgent importance since it would allow searches for members by other members and by the public, and would also meet the needs of the community in collecting anonymous self-reported demographics data. The CASCA Board should direct funding toward hiring professionals to create a modern database that serves this dual purpose, and that its members can trust and use easily. The CASCA Board should prioritize updating the CASCA Mission and Ethics statements and creating a Values Statement and a Code of Ethics. These documents would provide the basic framework for CASCA-developed EDI initiatives, and should therefore be self-consistent and enforceable; this may require funding to accomplish. The CASCA Board should prioritize EDI training within the CASCA membership. We recommend that committee members complete EDI training as part of their service; Canadian-made training programs that touch on many relevant EDI issues are freely available and their uptake would be a no-cost first step. The CASCA Board should also consider funding EDI-focused plenary sessions that bring in trained EDI experts at CASCA Annual General Meetings. The CASCA Board should endorse the exploration of a national mentoring strategy for early-career astronomers. Mentorship programs have been successfully implemented in other communities, and would build relationships across the country and enhance support for students, postdocs and junior faculty outside their home institutions by pairing them with a mentor closely aligned with their personal or professional experiences. The CASCA Board should commit to the principles of the Dimensions Charter, and encourage its members and their institutions to do the same. CASCA should encourage members at the chosen Dimensions pilot project institutions to participate in that study over the next two years and then assess the outcome with respect to its own EDI values and goals.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,037
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesScience ouverte
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,994
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,967

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0370,087
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0340,016
Communication savante0,0310,010
Science ouverte0,0060,015
Intégrité de la recherche0,0130,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,094
Tête enseignante GPT0,322
Écart entre enseignants0,228 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Même sujetOral health in cancer treatmentTravaux en français237 207