MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402109717 · doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v44i1.52268

How Vulnerable Am I? An Experiential Discussion of Tenure Rhetoric for New Faculty

2018· article· en· W4402109717 on OpenAlex
Mark Hirschkorn

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

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCommunication in Education and Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricExperiential learningSociologyPolitical sciencePedagogyPublic relationsPsychologyLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attaining tenure is a significant stress and source of motivation for tenure-track new faculty. A process that is misconstrued. misrepresented, and rife with rumour. To make matters worse, the process varies with institution, candidate, and year. This article uses a narrative-auto-ethnographic approach to unpack the concerns and questions about tenure that I, as a tenuretrack new faculty member, have experienced. The literature is used to contextualize these issues within the experiences of other new faculty reported in the research - seeking the truth behind the stories. The article concludes with focused reflections on White's (2008) list of strategies to help navigate the complexities of the tenure process, as well as recommendations for how to approach the tenure-track process.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.366 · 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