MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123172369

Faculty Workload in a Research Intensive University: A Case Study

2013· article· en· W3123172369 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCIRANO Project Reports · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadDisciplineRank (graph theory)Service (business)Task (project management)Medical educationPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineSociologyManagementBusinessMathematicsMarketingSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on faculty workload reports differences in worked weekly hours and in the distribution of total time allocated to teaching, research, and service. Some differences are also reported concerning faculty workload by gender, academic rank, and disciplinary sectors. This study analyzes self-reported faculty workload in a Canadian research intensive university. It introduces a new way of measuring time on task by calculating it in a typical most loaded month an in a typical less loaded month. Results show an average weekly workload of 56.97 hours of which 44.1% is allocated to teaching, 35.2% to research, 5.8% to administrative tasks and 14.8% to service. There are few differences in faculty workload by gender, academic rank, and disciplinary sectors. Overall, self-reported faculty workload has increased in the last decade partly because of electronic communications and procedures and on-line pedagogical activities.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.532
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.029 · 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