MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1502670685 · doi:10.1353/esc.2003.0009

The Simulation of Academic Crisis; Or, Chicken Little Rules the Roost

2003· article· en· W1502670685 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Julia M. Wright

Notice bibliographique

RevueEnglish studies in Canada · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensWilfrid Laurier University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGovernment (linguistics)HistoryClass (philosophy)Futures contractEconomic historyPolitical scienceMedia studiesLawManagementSociologyBusinessEconomicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFinancePhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The Simulation of Academic Crisis; Or, Chicken Little Rules the Roost Julia M . W right W ilfrid Laurier University For us, of course, things can change so abruptly, so violently, so profoundly, that futures like our grand­ parents’ have insufficient ground to ¿land on. We have no future because our present is too volatile. William Gibson, Pattern Recognition (2003) A few years ag o , I was travelling to a conference and had a long con­ versation with the businessman sitting next to me. I took all that he said with a very large pinch of salt (he told me, for instance, that he owned a major company that did a lot of business across North America but he was sitting in Economy Class next to a newly minted assistant professor in the Humanities—and I had the window seat). But the underlying logic of one of his remarks was sufficiently chilling that I have never forgotten it. We were talking about the many rounds of cuts to university budgets in Ontario and I was lamenting the impact on students who, I suggested, were getting less than they would have just five years earlier—libraries were falling out of date as book budgets were slashed, cutbacks in staff and faculty were reducing the support available to students, and increasing faculty workloads were eating into the time necessary for the research that keeps teaching current—while the administration actually seemed to be growing at some universities. His response went something like this: The government knows all that. The administration will keep cutting faculty positions and student services, but only until they reach the point where any further cuts will cause the ESC 29.1-2 (March/June 2003): 85-96 J ulia M. Wright is Canada Research Chair in English at Wilfrid Laurier University. She is the author of Blake, Nationalism, and the Politics ofAlienation (2003) and has published in such journals as el h and European Romantic Review as well as various essay collections. She is also the editor of The Missionary: An Indian Tale by Sydney Owenson (Lady Morgan) (2002) and the co-editor of (with Tilottama Rajan) Romanticism, History, and the Possibilities of Genre (1998), (with Joel Faflak) Nervous Reactions: Victorian Recollections of Romanticism (2003), and (with Jason Haslam) Captivating Subjects: Writing Confinement, Citizenship, and Nationhood in the Nineteenth Century (forthcoming). university to fail. If they don’t keep the university running, they’ll lose their jobs; so, to protect themselves, they’ll start trimming the fat in the administration and universities will become much more efficient. That’s the goal. What struck me at the time was the Darwinian brutality of it all. In this scenario, there was no concern at all about the generation of students who would pay the price for this imagined war between two institutional bureaucracies (government versus university); the only goal was to force university administrations to evolve into sleeker, trimmer beasts, and to do so with the least possible supervision. No studies, no advice, no evalua­ tion of the outcome—just create a crisis which, it is assumed, will provoke greater efficiency. In this vision of government thinking, the panopticon is no longer cost-effective, so instead we have a variant of television’s reality series, Survivor: the survival of the fittest once the conditions have been set to be sufficiently hostile and challenging to pose a meaningful threat, or at least appear to be so. Crisis is an attenuated feature of what Jean Baudrillard calls “simula­ tion.” In Symbolic Exchange and Death (sed), he describes “simulation” as “the third-order simulacrum [which operates] on the structural law of value” (sed 50): We pass from injunction to disjunction through the code, from the ultimatum to solicitation, from obligatory passiv­ ity to models constructed from the outset on the basis of the subject’s “active response,” and this subject’s involvement and “ludic” participation, towards a total environmental model made up of incessant spontaneous responses, joyous feedback and irradiated contacts, (sed 70-71) “Crisis” is an especially productive term in “this universe of operational simulation, multi-stimulation and multi-response. This incessant test of successful adaptation” (sed 71). It solicits our “active response...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,351
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,969

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,301
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2003
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEnglish studies in CanadaMême sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207