Creative Professional Activity: An Additional Platform for Promotion of Faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic promotion has traditionally been based on research and teaching, but faculty members' contributions to the profession may not be fully captured in those dimensions. Faculty members may influence the practice of medicine and improve the care of patients yet not obtain traditional measures of achievement through publications, grants, or teaching awards. With this problem in mind, at the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, the promotions committee developed and implemented a promotions criterion called Creative Professional Activity (CPA) to recognize and reward a variety of types of academic endeavors that have a demonstrable impact on medical practice and care. CPA comprises three activities: professional innovation, exemplary practice, and contributions to the development of the discipline. In this article, the authors define CPA, provide illustrative case examples, describe how faculty members document CPA, and report the use of this promotions criterion in the Department of Medicine over the last decade. The challenges of implementing CPA as a promotion criterion are described. CPA is consistent with the Department of Medicine's goal of achieving excellence through original research, education, or creative work that advances the care of patients.
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 | 0.024 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".