Editorial: Considering Competency and
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is hard to believe that this time last year I ws just beginning to teach a seven week master’s level course in Philosophy and Educational Administration at the University of Victoria in Canada. I had been invited to do so by that most colourful of entrepreneur academics, Peter Murphy. Characteristically, when my wife came to visit, he insisted we should stay at his home. Peter is a great traveller and, at the time, he was on one of his visits elsewhere, I greatly enjoyed the course and the students and Vancouver Island was far more wonderful than my high expectations. It is first on our list of all the places ive have visited that we hope to return to. Even so my main reason for going tvas the opportunity to meet Christopher Hodgkinson, a scholar whose work I have learnt much from and have admired for many years. He was on study leave at the time but happily for me he was spending this at home ivriting a book. With great generosity he agreed to meet me several times and was even willing to subject himself to undertaking an interview on his life and times as a scholar which I taped. The interview was to be used as part of my contribution to a special edition of the Journal of Educational Administration and Foundations devoted to a cele-bration of Professor Hodgkinson’s life and career on the event of his impending retire-ment. The journal is published by the University of Victoria and is edited by Yvonne Martin. Yvonne has worked in the same Department as Christopher Hodgkinson for many years. In putting together this celebratory edition she commissioned valedictory papers from
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".