2015 CSUSB Campus Climate Survey: Phase 2 Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report is the second of two that address results of CSUSB's 2015 Campus Climate survey.This survey was distributed via email invitation to all employees at CSUSB in fall quarter 2015.The purpose of the survey was to measure the organizational climate of CSUSB.Within this paper, we describe employees' perceptions of the performance evaluation process; the potential for job growth and career advancement on the campus; workload; work stress; communication and application of policies and procedures; perceptions of diversity; psychological safety, respect, and trust; and incivility and bullying.Both numerical ratings and themes generated from comments to the open-ended questions, with representative statements by respondents, are presented.Background.At two fora in June 2015, sponsored by the Faculty Senate executive committee, over 200 faculty and staff gathered to express concerns about the campus climate.The faculty senate chair requested that the chancellor sponsor a survey to assess the campus' climate.Chancellor White declined to sponsor the survey, but encouraged the campus community to work together to address the issues.Consequently, an ad hoc
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads 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".