Measuring Capacity for Community-Engaged Scholarship: Results from an Institutional Self-Assessment at the University of Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The University of Saskatchewan conducted an institutional self-assessment survey in the fall of 2013 and winter of 2014 to measure its capacity for community-engaged scholarship. This effort is part of a national initiative of eight Canadian universities (Community-Engaged Scholarship Partnership), working to change institutional policies and practices around community-engaged scholarship. This paper reports on the results of the University of Saskatchewan’s self-assessment survey completed by 159 participants across campus that include administrators, faculty, and professional staff. The participants report that there are strong practices of community-engaged scholarship throughout the University. However, there are also many opportunities to strengthen the support and capacity for community-engaged scholarship. Institutional leadership and support, for example, that is consistent and effective is required at multiple levels (department, college or school, university) in order for community-engaged scholarship to be recognized and rewarded in all academic processes. The University’s Community Engagement and Outreach Office at Station 20 West is one notable exemplar of community-engaged scholarship and practice; it is a good example of how students, faculty, and community are effectively supported in these activities.
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 | 0.903 | 0.478 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.785 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.613 |
| 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".