Building Engaged Scholarship in Canada: Introducing the First Issue of the Engaged Scholar Journal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The submissions profiled in our inaugural issue represent the diversity of scholarly engagement in Canada as evidenced in the titles and abstracts of the essays. Our authors come from the health sciences, the arts, sociology, education, linguistics, policy studies, business, women and gender studies, psychology, biodiversity and environmental studies, and other scholarly areas. They speak about their work conducted in Canada and abroad, with various social groups, ethnic and indigenous communities. Most of them are university-based researchers; others are community-based co-authors while some are students, and yet others are firmly positioned in both academic and community worlds. All are united by their commitment to real community-driven partnerships and engaged scholarshipÂ
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 | 0.972 | 0.964 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.755 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.925 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".