CRITERIA FOR TENURE AND PROMOTION: A REVIEW OF PRACTICES AMONG MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reviews current practice relating to tenure and promotion to the highest rank by examining those libraries closest to our situation, the members of the Canadian Association of Research Libraries. A search of the literature indicates that reviews of tenure and promotion criteria and practices for Canadian academic libraries are rare. In 1995 Gloria Leckie and Jim Brett undertook a review of the key terms and conditions for librarians found in collective agreements of libraries belonging to the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Their findings indicate that practices vary widely with no consistent approach across the board. A number of factors exerting upward pressure on criteria and promotion for University of Calgary librarians led me to investigate whether this upward pressure was a widespread phenomenon, and therefore whether criteria and processes for tenure and promotion had subsequently been affected. Results from this investigation are compared to the initial 1995 survey. For comparison purposes, a literature survey was conducted and findings are summarized.
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 | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".