THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF RESEARCH MANAGEMENT SOCIETIES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
About INORMS: INORMS, formed in 2001, serves as a collaborative platform bringing together research management societies and associations globally. Its primary goal is to facilitate interactions, sharing of best practices, and joint activities among member societies, ultimately benefiting their individual members. Despite having distinct remits, constitutions, memberships, and geographical bases, member societies face similar challenges in the evolving landscape of research management. INORMS Objectives: Members: INORMS currently comprises 21 research management societies from around the world, including notable ones like the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (UK), Australasian Research Management Society, and Society of Research Administrators International. Membership: Research management societies are encouraged to join INORMS to foster the development of similar associations in under-represented areas. Benefits of Membership: INORMS membership offers advantages such as knowledge exchange on international best practices, skill development through resource sharing, and the establishment of professional networks across global sectors involved in research management. JOIN INORMS: The process for societies to become members involves completing and returning the INORMS Membership Registration Form. Applications are considered by the INORMS Council, with a short presentation required from applicants. INORMS Governance: The INORMS Council provides leadership and is comprised of the Chairs/Presidents of member associations. The council is underpinned by a set of Operating Principles reviewed annually. A Working Group was formed in 2017 to strengthen the network's value proposition, progressing ideas and joint initiatives for the benefit of the network. Research Impact and Stakeholder Engagement Working Group: Co-chaired by David Phipps (York University, Canada) and Julie Bayley (University of Lincoln, UK), this group focuses on building the capacity of research managers and administrators to support researchers in maximizing the impacts of their work. The RISE Working Group, which concluded in Autumn 2020, developed criteria to assess products and services supporting research impact. Research Administration as a Profession (RAAAP) Taskforce: The RAAAP survey identifies key skills, attitudes, and behaviors of successful research management and administration leaders. The taskforce, established in 2016, aims to continue surveying Research Managers and Administrators every three years, collecting and analyzing longitudinal data about the profession. INORMS Research Evaluation Group: Previously known as REWG, this group, established in 2018, focuses on ensuring meaningful, responsible, and effective research evaluation. It developed the SCOPE framework and 'five arguments' for engaging senior leaders in responsible research evaluation. The group also addresses the influence of Global University Rankings on university behavior and introduced the More Than Our Rank initiative to reconsider their utilization.
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 | 0,022 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,010 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».