MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W286209520

Academia's own demographic time-bomb

2005· article· en· W286209520 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Graham Hugo

Bibliographic record

VenueAdelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRetirement, Disability, and Employment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingWorkforceQuarter (Canadian coin)HavenPolitical scienceHistoryPublic relationsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It's no news that Australian academics, like Australian cricketers, are getting older (and perhaps tireder). But the exact dimensions of the sector's staffing crisis haven't been clear. Graham Hugo has been studying the figures in detail, and he suggests that the problem may in fact be worse than has been thought. Around a quarter of the academic workforce will retire in the next decade, and there's a 'lost generation' where their replacements should be.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0910.025

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 head0.303
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.155 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide)Same topicRetirement, Disability, and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207