Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promotion represents an important factor for the employee regardless of his/her position, especially the academic. It is noticeable in our daily life that there are obstacles that limit promotion, and these obstacles are established and organized for in at least some cases by those who are related and have something to do with it. These obstacles are placed in order to avoid many things, including financial burdens and/or social positions that the person in question may obtain. In some cases, the reason may be personal, caused by competition, gender, status, etc. Indeed, the procedure of promotion happens according to protocol frameworks that make the helpless employee accept the fait accompli. When an employee signs and agrees to work, s/he should consent to and accept all frameworks and regulations enacted by employers, whether they are individuals or institutions. There may be unfairness in these regulations that the employee must accept for the sake of having a job. During my search for articles discussing the subject of promotion, especially academic ones, I found very few, and all of them are about promotion in North America, and they depend on accurate information and statistics that I have nothing alike. Due to the lack of references and statistics, I will rely on my experience and background in most of the presentation of this topic. The goal is to attract the attention of those interested individuals and to share my experience with readers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".