Bibliographic record
Abstract
To support faculty as they remained civically engaged during the pandemic, the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of South Dakota (CTL) launched a training series on public scholarship partnering with facilitators from Emory, Baylor, and Harvard. Core outcome of the series were for faculty to find a home for themselves in public engagement and to support students in their own public-facing work. The series introduced faculty to public scholarship as a dialogical partnership and offered workshops on facilitating public-facing student work and organizing virtual conferences, concluding each term with a panel featuring academics who promote the common good in different ways. This article explains the development of this series with the theoretical underpinnings that guided it and concludes by proposing a definition of public scholarship that includes student voices and repositions universities within the communities they inhabit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.062 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.005 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".