Academia in the 21st century: Towards both a research and a teaching-intensive university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over two decades ago, when I first joined the University of British Columbia (UBC) as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Visual and Performing Arts in Education, I was immediately advised by my colleagues and my department Head of the importance of research to my academic career. One of the Associate Deans in my Faculty arranged meetings with junior faculty to advise us of upcoming research grant competitions and volunteered to review our research proposals. To help me successfully plunge into the competitive “publish or perish” culture of UBC, my department Head was available to offer feedback on my early papers. Yet, as far as my teaching was concerned, I was just provided with a list of course numbers and it was up to me to figure out from calendar descriptions and economically worded past syllabi what and how I was now responsible to teach. I initially took this lack of attention to my role as a university teacher as a reflection of my joining a Faculty of Education, and a possible assumption of my curricular and pedagogical competence based on the nature of my doctoral degree. Yet, I soon realised that my experience was shared by colleagues joining other Faculties, whose doctoral and post-doctoral experience provided them with minimal, if any, exposure to educational issues. There was no doubt in my mind and the minds of my contemporaries joining the academia in the 1990s, that our professional lives were to be about research, and that teaching was the necessary price to pay for the privilege to be an academic at a university with world-class aspirations. (Abstract taken from first paragraph of document)
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 | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".