Towards More Inclusive Promotion and Tenure Criteria, Policies, and Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promotion and tenure (P&T) criteria at research-focused universities typically emphasise research scholarship and productivity. Unfortunately, ‘research’ is often narrowly defined as activities specific to a particular discipline. Rarely does ‘research’ include other activities, even when they are supported by external funding or have archival journals dedicated to their subject. These other activities promote professional development of faculty while advancing university goals; however, despite their importance, these activities are rarely acknowledged in P&T criteria. This paper presents the results of a study that investigates how some universities have diversified P&T paths to be inclusive of broader faculty accomplishments. Recommendations are offered regarding steps to update or develop P&T policies and procedures that give credit for a wider spectrum of faculty activities.
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 | 0.336 | 0.248 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.050 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".