EXPERIENCES OF SENIOR SCHOLARS AND PROFESSORS EMERITI: FOCUS GROUP RESULTS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study we were interested in learning about the experiences of Senior Scholars and Professors Emeriti at the University of Manitoba (UM), as part of a larger age-friendly university project on these term and lifetime positions for retired academics. Focus groups were held online with 11 women and men. The interview guide, developed based on earlier findings from a survey of a larger group of individuals in these same positions, included questions on their reasons for attaining the positions, benefits, challenges, and processes. Six themes were identified from the data collected: 1) commitment, 2) connection/access, 3) variability, 4) overlooked, 5) clarity (lack of) and 6) opportunity. 1) Participants indicated they are committed to their departments and colleagues locally, nationally and internationally. 2) Connections to colleagues and resources are important and appreciated (e.g., email, computer technical support, office and lab space). 3) Despite being at the same university, experiences were not consistent in how they acquired and subsequently renewed positions. 4) While there were many positive experiences shared, some respondents expressed disappointment, concern, anger and even fear, as well as having a sense of not being supported or even ignored. 5) There is an apparent misunderstanding of the designations, access to resources, and resulting expectations and roles. 6) Finally, all were positive about the opportunities to make changes to: nurture a sense of belonging of Senior Scholars and Professors Emeriti; acknowledge their efforts and achievements; create opportunities for increased participation; and ultimately foster a model workplace for retired academics.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it