MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097411107 · doi:10.19030/tlc.v7i10.153

Academic Staff Disposition To Promotion Criteria In Nigerian Universities

2010· article· en· W2097411107 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsAmbrose University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Inclusion (mineral)Medical educationSample (material)PsychologyData collectionMedicinePolitical scienceSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed at determining academic staff satisfaction with promotion criteria and what, in their view, should be included in the promotion criteria. A researcher-designed questionnaire was utilized for data collection from a sample size of 349 academic staff. Findings show that the majority of the academic staff were dissatisfied with the promotion practices. Academic staff were satisfied with promotion criteria that had to do with required number of publications but dissatisfied with those related to computer literacy and international publication requirements. An oral interview before promotion was advocated for inclusion into the promotion criteria by academic staff. Evolving a more holistic criterion for promotion of academic staff was recommended.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.330 · 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