MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071861909 · doi:10.1108/08880450810875701

Challenge grants: frightening, frustrating, and fruitful

2008· article· en· W2071861909 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Stanley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Bottom Line Managing Library Finances · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityIncentiveValue (mathematics)Foundation (evidence)Grant fundingWork (physics)Public relationsKey (lock)Political scienceEngineering ethicsBusinessComputer scienceSociologyEngineeringEconomicsPublic administrationQualitative researchSocial scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the challenges and benefits of a challenge grant. Design/methodology/approach The paper explains the University of Waterloo Library's first‐hand experiences in seeking and acquiring a challenge grant from the Kresge Foundation. Findings The challenge grant can provide libraries with a unique opportunity to raise their profiles, enlist the support of key leaders, generate excitement about their organizations' work and future plans, and raise additional funds. Originality/value The paper provides practical suggestions that offer incentive and encouragement to seek a challenge grant due to the many benefits that accrue to a library development 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 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)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0240.017
Scholarly communication0.0220.013
Open science0.0030.021
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Bottom Line Managing Library FinancesSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207