Development, Implementation and Evaluation of a Professional Skills Development Program: The Case of Concordia University’s GradProSkills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Graduate and Professional Skills (GradProSkills) program is an initiative developed and run by Concordia University’s School of Graduate Studies and the university’s Office of the Vice-President, Research and Graduate Studies. This paper presents a case study in which we describe the development, implementation, and evaluative components of the GradProSkills program. Drawing on data from a rigorously validated workshop evaluation tool and from attendance figures spanning a period of a little over two and a half years, we provide a picture of how Concordia’s graduate students are benefiting from the GradProSkills program. We present the results of both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses run on a pilot group of registrants who provided evaluation data (n = 3,292). Our case study contributes an empirically derived model of extracurricular programming, with contextualizing details of administrative structures, curriculum-development initiatives, and partnership efforts that have been used in operating the GradProSkills program. 
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".