Attended the Society for College and University Planning: Global Perspectives, Local Strategies Conference in Montreal, QC, July 19-23, 2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conference (1,400 including 120 from Canada) dealt primarily with space planning but there were academic planning sessions throughout as well that I attended. I was particularly focused on learning as much as possible regarding the Middle States accreditation review process since AU will begin our first review work in earnest in September. To that end I attended a special Middles States workshop and met the presenters as well as others, asking questions and seeking advice. I also took advantage of other academic planning sessions to network with others and ask questions regarding the process and received unofficial advice. I then prepared a summary of what I learned including names and contact information of people I met and provided it to the AU team leads. I also learned about other academic planning topics including program divestment, process recommendations, collaboration techniques etc and have contacted the appropriate people at AU regarding lessons learned and possible next steps. Much of the information was particularly timely as the provincial government unrolls the new Roles and Mandates process and institutional requirements; it will feed into several activities and meetings I am involved in over the next few months. The most applicable of these was a presentation by the U of A regarding their planning processes and their impact on the Ministry; there will be several concrete lessons learned there for my work and others in my office. Several sessions related to academic program reviews, a process I am very involved in through my AU program review Self Study coordination and authorship. I learned some useful information and gained new perspectives. \n•\tOne of the American University VPs spoke about lessons learned from their DE distributed workforce so I passed along several observations accordingly – another timely topic (especially in light of AUFA’s current discussions). \n•\tI was able to meet several Canadian university colleagues, furthering my networking opportunities for future consultation and reference. I was able to maximize the resources available to me; I attended something at almost every opportunity (and there were a lot of opportunities!), found my own (much cheaper) hotel, took the airport shuttle, and generally tried to keep expenses down. \n \nIn sum: it was very beneficial for me to attend in light of AU’s pending Middle States review. It was also useful to gather general planning ideas as we add a new University planning requirement. However, in order to decide if I should attend in future I will need to find out the mix of academic planning sessions vis-à-vis space planning sessions. Several people there suggested that I could present something in future regarding DE-related activities that I/we have been involved in, which I will consider as well. I know one of the presenters from the U of A so could seek advice from him.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.145 | 0.014 |
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".