MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034783763 · doi:10.1177/1523422320927297

Risk and Reflection in the Academic Workplace

2020· article· en· W3034783763 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

VenueAdvances in Developing Human Resources · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)Context (archaeology)Isolation (microbiology)BureaucracyHuman resourcesSociologyPublic relationsCritical reflectionHuman resource managementPedagogyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineeringPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Problem Universities are workplaces designed for learning, research, and reflection. In recent years, an amalgam of issues, both internal and external, have emerged, making critical reflection more difficult and riskier for both academic and nonacademic staff. The Solution We argue that positive leadership, dialogue, and group connection can help counter increasing isolation and in effect make reflection more possible. The Stakeholders This article is relevant not only to human resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners within the context of postsecondary institutions but also to large and complex bureaucratic organizations grappling with a changing landscape of employment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.327 · 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