MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748004972 · doi:10.5703/1288284314771

Collegiality Matters: How Do We Work With Others?

2012· article· en· W2748004972 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsPurdue Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollegialityPromotion (chess)InstitutionAcademic institutionWork (physics)Public relationsSociologyPolitical sciencePedagogyComputer scienceEngineeringLibrary scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is no secret that collegiality matters in academe regardless of the size and type of institution. When it comes to promotion, reappointment and tenure, the invocation of collegiality occurs. Collegiality can mean different things to different people depending on the usage. This paper will examine the issues surrounding collegiality in a library setting, analyze the factors which influence collegiality among academic librarians, and explore the boundaries of collegiality in a higher education setting. The discussion concludes with an overview of research designed to develop a better understanding of how the leadership affects collegiality and, in turn, to identify strategies for the rapidly changing academic library environment which would enhance the ability of academic librarians to remain relevant and vital to the academic community we serve.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.015
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207