Gaining Momentum in Student Affairs and Services in Canada: Bridging Gaps and Building Futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It brings us great pleasure to launch the second issue in our double special issue feature on student affairs and services research in Canada.This double special issue arose through a partnership between the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education (CSSHE), our journal's home, and the Canadian Association of College & University Student Services (CA-CUSS).The two societies encouraged their communities to engage with this opportunity to showcase student affairs and services research in Canada.The enthusiastic response from new and established researchers and scholar-practitioners across the country allowed us to compile two full issues of contemporary scholarship of relevance to those researching, working, or studying in the student affairs and services field.This editorial introduces the second issue of the double special issue feature.We invite readers to also peruse the first issue, including an earlier editorial with a fulsome overview of this initiative and its purpose.The first issue includes the following articles:• Vanessa Ellis Colley et al.'s article, "Experiences of Black International Graduate Students: Encounters of Racial Disparities Amidst EDI Rhetoric at a Canadian University" • Hend Shalan et al.'s article, "Exploring Safe Spaces in On-Campus Residences: Perspectives of Black and Racialized Students Through Auto-Photography" • Emerson LaCroix and Janice Aurini's article, "How Can Post-Secondary Institutions Support Transfer Students?Lessons from Ontario" • Noah Arney's article, "What is Prohibited?Non-Academic Conduct Policies in Canadian Universities" • Manon Bergeron et al.'s article, "Signalement d'une situation de violence sexuelle à l'université: l'importance du soutien dans l'expérience des personnes victimes" • Stephanie J. Waterman, Shawna Cunnigham, and Michelle Pidgeon's article, "Understanding the Heartwork of Indigenous Student Services During the Challenging Times of Reconciliation, Decolonization, and Indigenization" Continuing Scholarship Through Mutual CollaborationsAs Canadian faculty members situated within Faculties of Education at
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.003 |
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".