MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1548510523 · doi:10.21225/d52013

CAUCE Institutional Members' Survey: A Snapshot

2009· article· en· W1548510523 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lorraine Carter, Tracey Taylor-O'Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of University Continuing Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)Continuing educationDescriptive statisticsSurvey researchInstitutional researchPublic relationsExecutive summaryExecutive directorHigher educationPolitical scienceManagementSociologyPublic administrationPsychologyMedical educationBusinessLawMedicineSocioeconomicsEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuing education in Canadian universities is currently at a type of crossroads. It is being affected by a number of factors, including recent changes in the economy; the different approaches universities are taking to continuing education, which range from centralized to decentralized models; and the blending of continuing education with areas such as online and distance education. Given these circumstances, the CAUCE Executive, under the leadership of Tracey Taylor-O'Reilly, CAUCE president, and Lorraine Carter, its Research Committee chair, designed and disseminated an institutional members' survey in Spring 2009. The ultimate goal of this initiative was to generate a snapshot of the needs of CAUCE's institutional members and to use these findings to plan programs and services that reflect the needs of the membership. Further, the Executive intends to repeat the survey every few years. This article reports the key findings of the survey as descriptive statistics and recurring messages offered in open ended questions and as additional comments.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of University Continuing EducationSame topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207