MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386585163 · doi:10.1145/3569951.3597562

Career Phases in Research Computing and Data

2023· article· en· W4386585163 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOnboardingWorkforceVocabularyComputer scienceWork (physics)Knowledge managementOrder (exchange)Career developmentPsychologyBusinessPolitical scienceEngineeringPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Campus Research Computing Consortium (CaRCC) Staff Workforce Development Interest Group serves to support current Research Computing and Data (RCD) professionals, provide information for people looking to become an RCD professional, and to provide information to institutions looking to establish RCD workforce development programs. The goal of this group is to curate information from existing, successful programs in order to develop leading practices for staff onboarding, training, and development. This paper presents the results of the interest group’s early effort to define the phases of an RCD career from beginning to end, which is the first step in defining a framework and a shared vocabulary to better collect and organize information and resources. The paper defines pre-, early-, mid-, and late- RCD career phases, and activities, as well as the transitions in and out of a phase. The intent is to use these definitions as a basis for future work of the interest group.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.039
Open science0.0050.020
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.628
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.010 · 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