HALBERT EXCHANGE PROGRAM AT THE HALBERT CENTRE FOR CANADIAN STUDIES, HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM Post-Doctoral Fellowships FOR STUDY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO FOR FELLOWSHIPS COMMENCING FALL 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Your application for a Halbert Post-Doctoral Fellowship must include all relevant documentation listed below (items 1 to 7). These documents should be submitted together as one application package. The application package must be received no later than WEDNESDAY, 30 JANUARY 2013. Please send the application package by email to mscanada@mscc.huji.ac.il Your application will be judged according to the following criteria: � Overall academic excellence � Specific Canadian content, and/or reasons for choosing the University of Toronto as a post-doctoral venue, and/or a letter of invitation from an academic sponsor in your field at the University of Toronto � Completion of doctoral dissertation no more than three years prior to the submission of the fellowship request or the anticipated date of receiving PhD degree prior to the start of the fellowship (Fall 2013) DOCUMENTS TO INCLUDE: 1. Application Form The application form is found below. It can be filled out and printed in the free Adobe Reader. For the proposal abstract, you may find it convenient to cut and paste from your word processor; however, italics, bold, or special characters cannot be pasted. In all fields but the Project Abstract, the text will automatically resize to fit the available space once you have finished entering the information. Please note: the information you enter into the form cannot be saved. Therefore, you must fill out all of the information at once and then print it. 2. Detailed Program of Work a. Your program of work should not exceed 1,250 words in 12 point font and 1.5 spacing. Each page should be numbered consecutively and include your name and “Post-Doc Fellowship ” at the top right-hand corner. The proposal should be written for general academic readers and not for specialists in your field. b. Your detailed program of work should describe: � the issue(s) to be studied � the questions and goals of the proposed research � the distinction between the current project and the PhD dissertation � the way in which the project fits into the existing literature � the potential contribution of the project � the methodology you intend to use � the proposed strategy for the dissemination of your research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".