Square Pegs in Round Holes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In May 2003 all university faculties of medicine, health sciences, nursing, business, and public administration in Canada were surveyed to document whether their promotion practices gave equal treatment to researchers with traditional disciplinary-based scholarly outputs versus those with nontraditional outputs flowing from an applied interest in interdisciplinary research, collaboration with nonacademics, and knowledge transfer. Forty-seven deans (response rate = 67 percent) and thirty-two promotion committee members (response rate = 51 percent) consistently rated research as more important than teaching and community service in promotion proceedings. Furthermore, in their considerations of research they accorded significantly more value in promotion to traditional than to nontraditional scholarly outputs. Among the deans, for example, the top ten ranked activities included seven traditional research outputs, two teaching-related outputs, and only one nontraditional research output. Scholars with nontraditional outputs were slightly less disadvantaged in health-related faculties compared to the nonhealth faculties. Despite broader acceptance of an evolving research landscape in Canadian universities, current reward structures may create barriers for academics interested in conducting nontraditional research characteristic of the emerging paradigm of applied scholarship.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.167 | 0.037 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".