Orientation for New Faculty About Tenure and Promotion: Standards and the Review Process
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Column Editor's NotesThis feature column, written by C. Jeffrey Belliston from Brigham Young University (BYU) in the United States of America (USA) takes up the challenge issued in the inaugural Library Workforce column. The article discusses the collegial process for tenure and/or promotion and highlights a critical process in the life cycle of the academic librarian. Using the lens of the BYU experiences, Belliston overviews and discusses tenure and promotion processes, which can be for the academic librarian with faculty status, both a familiar process and at the same time, an equally mysterious and stressful process.Beyond the library at the institutional level, the tenure and/or promotion process recognizes and establishes the academic librarian as part of The Academy. Imbedded in the process is shared responsibilities for the academic librarian, the library and the institution to work together to ensure career progression and success. For example, the University of Saskatchewan in Canada recognizes the status and importance of both processes in university-level standards, prefaced with following acknowledgement and commitment: The award of tenure represents a long-term commitment of the university to a faculty member. It is a status granted as a result of judgement, by one's peers, on both the performance of academic duties and the expectation of future accomplishments. Promotion of colleagues involves an assessment of their success in performing their academic duties and an evaluation of the likelihood of future accomplishments (University of Saskatchewan Standards for Promotion and Tenure, accessed at: http://library.usask.ca/info/libstandards2015.pdf).I invite further contributions on this or related lifecycle topics. Please submit articles for this column to the editor at vicki.williamson@usask.ca
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it