Bibliographic record
Abstract
The annual CAUBO conference was an excellent opportunity to network with senior university administrators from across Canada and to gain valuable insights from an excellent program of concurrent sessions. It is a large conference, which had over 500 delegates and I attended some worthwhile sessions. \n \nThree sessions stand out in my mind as particularly interesting and of value to AU. These sessions were on leadership styles, brain development implications for physical space design, and human resource challenges related to anticipated needs in senior management. \n \nThe leadership session discussed the types of leadership that is appropriate for certain common situations and the impact of choosing the wrong leadership style for a particular situation. It provided a practical and theoretical model that I may use in future academic work. \n \nThe brain development session gave a new understanding of how attachment is formed by students to their place of study. It raised very good points to consider in the context of AU for both academic and administrative (such as alumni relations) reasons. \n \nFinally, the human resource session was a reminder of the importance of formal succession planning initiatives but also of the importance of ‘timing’. Although the session did not directly address the issue, formal succession planning programs will not achieve their desired goals if positions are not available for individuals to move into when they are ready. The ability to be creative and responsive to the needs of employees, sometimes even creating positions and using mentors, in a timely manner is critical to employee retention and to the in-house development of future leaders. \n \nThank you for the assistance that made attending this very worthwhile conference possible.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.036 |
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".