MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028945139 · doi:10.69554/vlsu1897

Going deep: How a new model for engagement transformed alumni affairs at the University of British Columbia

2019· article· en· W3028945139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeff Todd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of education advancement & marketing. · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColumbia universityStudent affairsVeterans AffairsPolitical scienceMedia studiesManagementSociologyMedicineHigher educationLawInternal medicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowing how to engage alumni is part art and part science, and very much depends on the culture of the educational institution involved. At the University of British Columbia (UBC), alumni have been a critical stakeholder since the university’s founding in 1915, but it was not until 10 years ago — when alumni engagement was elevated as an institutional university-wide priority, as well as at the faculty level — that the power of its 340,000-alumni community was fully leveraged. This paper explores the many ways in which UBC has built relationships across campus, instituted programs for innovation and cross-faculty learning and established metrics for engagement that are scalable as the alumni body — and university — continues to grow.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of education advancement & marketing.Same topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207