Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crossing over to the dark side is a popular reference to someone’s decision to leave the supposed “good, pure, and honest” side of something to go to its “bad, evil, and suspicious” side. This idiom is typically used when an administrator moves into a faculty position or vice versa. While there is a plethora of literature on the challenges new scholars face as they enter the academy, less is knownabout the lived experience of moving from being an administrator to faculty member. One might assume the move is straightforward; our own experiences, however, suggest otherwise. This study explores the transition experiences of seven Canadian higher education administrators to faculty positions. Participants shared common experiences and perspectives on the differences between the roles, all of which are exacerbated by the distrust between the two sides. Findings offer further understanding of the nuances and misconceptions held by both parties and propose areas for further research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".