BEYOND MEASURING CANADIAN BUSINESS SCHOOL RESEARCH OUTPUT AND IMPACT: A COMMENTARY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper by Dr. Erhan Erkut was published in the June 2002 issue of CJAS. In light of the importance of the topic and findings, we invited the Deans of two Canadian business schools to respond. We are pleased that Dr. Baba of McMaster University and Dr. Toulouse and Dr. Richard Déry of École des Hautes Études Commerciales Montréal accepted the invitation and we present their responses below. In the December 2002 issue of CJAS, we will present Dr. Erkut's rejoinder. Iraj Fooladi and Philip Rosson, co‐editors Cet article du Dr. Erhan Erkut a été publié dans la RCSA, numéro de juin 2002. Vu l'importance du sujet et des conclusions, nous avions invité les Doyens de deux écoles de commerce à y, réagir. Nous sommes heureux d'annoncer que le Dr. Baba de McMaster University et le Dr. Toulouse et le Dr. Richard Déry de L'École des Hautes Études Commerciales Montréal ont répondu favorablement à notre requête et nous présentons cidessous leurs réactions. Dans le numéro de décembre 2002 de la RSCA, nous présenterons la réplique du Dr Erkut. Iraj Fooladi et Philip Rosson, co‐rédacteurs
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".