MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139820490 · doi:10.36834/cmej.71638

Seven ways to get a grip on running a successful promotions process

2021· article· en· W3139820490 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Simon Field

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Process (computing)Key (lock)InstitutionComponent (thermodynamics)Computer scienceProcess managementAcademic institutionPublic relationsMarketingBusinessMedical educationMedicineComputer securityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Promotion within an academic institution is often a key component of a career; however, there are often barriers to successful applications. A streamlined and transparent process can assist faculty members in their goals of obtaining promotion, leading to greater security and satisfaction. This paper describes a methodology designed at a local level to maximize opportunities for success, in the hope that others may learn from the experience and advocate for similar changes within their own institutions.

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)0.239
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.198
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2390.198
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0240.028
Scholarly communication0.0450.032
Open science0.0050.022
Research integrity0.0080.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.369 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207