Orientation for New Faculty About Tenure and Promotion: Standards and the Review Process
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.
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 | 0.137 | 0.365 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.017 |
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".