THE COMPETENCE PORTFOLIO: REFLECTION FOR ORGANISATIONAL RENEWAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The reflective exercise inherent in a portfolio process is key for organisations as much as individuals to gather a vision of their past, present and future. This paper shares the experience of accompanying a self-run art centre in Quebec in the development and implementation of its organisational ePortfolio. At the heart of the process is the evaluation of the organisational competences of the art centre via a competence reference framework and performance indicators. The resulting ePortfolio serves as a tool to be integrated into the regular functioning of the organisation and is a source of pride for the organisation. In this case, the ePortfolio was used for strategic development of the organisation, specifically in the areas of communication, maintaining the organisational memory and integrating technological practices to enhance efficiency and visibility. The experience should contribute to the long-term sustainability of the organisation. In the end, the development and use of an organisational ePortfolio is somewhat similar to the development and use of an individual ePortfolio except that it applies to an entity, in this case an art centre, and is carried out by a representative group of persons rather than an individual.
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 | 0.036 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".