MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018809597 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p147

Faculty Retention in Higher Education

2013· article· en· W2018809597 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tariq Rahim Soomro, Reyaz Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMedical educationMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Criteria for retaining or firing a highly qualified faculty in higher education in many cases are vague and unclear. This situation is neither a comfortable, nor a healthy, both for the faculty and the administration. Stakeholders have enough reason to blame each other in the absence of transparent mechanism. This paper proposes a transparent point system for both faculty and higher education administration based on three most important categories – Teaching (T), Research (R), and community Service (S). This proposed transparent point system will present solution to resolve confusion among stakeholders. Faculty based on this transparent proposed point system may perform well and administration based on this proposed point system may decide to retain the faculty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207