MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389975294 · doi:10.29173/iasl8747

Flourishing School Library Faculty Members: Understanding Academic Workload

2023· article· en· W4389975294 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jennifer Branch-Mueller, Joanne Rodger, Jullana Ashley Arevalo, Crystal Stang

Bibliographic record

VenueIASL Annual Conference Proceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipFlourishingPromotion (chess)WorkloadAdministration (probate law)Service (business)Work (physics)Power (physics)Medical educationPsychologyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceManagementMedicineEngineeringBusinessMarketingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faculty members engage in research, teaching, service, and administration and are expected to excel in all areas to be awarded tenure and promotion. There is a disconnect between expectations and realities for school library faculty members in terms of teaching, research, service and administration. Consistent with previous research, school library faculty members work long hours. Individual goals, discretionary power, and collective good come into conflict in different ways at different stages of a career. This study also provides a starting point for others interested in examining and comparing academic work in different disciplines. Potential and current school library faculty may use the findings to inform career decisions, e.g., entry to the profession, career progression, and mentorship.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASL Annual Conference ProceedingsSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207