MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7001238438

INCREASING INCLUSION: THE PURSUIT OF RACIAL DIVERSITY IN THREE HISTORICALLY WHITE UNIVERSITIES IN KENTUCKY, MICHIGAN, AND ONTARIO FROM 2000 TO 2012

2018· article· en· W7001238438 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDesegregationLegislationScrutinyHistorically black colleges and universitiesMandateAffirmative actionCommissionDiversity (politics)State (computer science)Civil rightsRacism
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The University of Kentucky (UK) and University of Michigan (UM) present very different patterns in terms of black student enrollments and completions from 2000 to 2012 because of a structural explanation, a qualitative explanation, and a statistical explanation. Unfortunately, the patterns at the University of Western Ontario (UWO) are partial due to a lack of data.\nFirst, the structural explanation is that UK, as a university in the state of Kentucky, was under a mandate from the U.S. Department of Education to desegregate because they were in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (KCPE) gave specific goals related to black student enrollment and completions. Substantial progress was made from 2000-2012, primarily during the time when Lee Todd Jr. created the President’s Commission on Diversity (PCD) which implemented strategies to achieve the goals. While the same federal laws applied to UM, as a northern state they were not under the same federal scrutiny regarding desegregation. UM was taking an aggressive approach with regards to increasing black student enrollments and completions under president Lee Bollinger, and he passed the process along to Mary Sue Coleman, but UM was faced with a negative response and resistance in terms of lawsuits in 2003 and legislation in 2006 (the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative or MCRI) which banned the consideration of race for all public colleges and universities in admissions. UM is highly selective, and a legacy of social movements by black students was stronger at UM than at UK, which may have increased media scrutiny and negative reactions. Essentially, UK’s success was based on an externally monitored topdown approach with little media scrutiny.\nSecond, archived university websites from 2000-2012 and interviews with 21 key informants at the three universities showed a difference in the way diversity initiatives were framed. The Kentucky Plan, the desegregation mandate, had concrete and explicit language in terms of requirements related to black student enrollment at UK. The implementation at UK, although sometimes using broad and general language, was accountable to the explicit requirements of the mandate and black student enrollments and completions increased during that timeframe. At UM, during the Mary Sue Coleman administration, what began as explicit policy under Lee Bollinger became more general and vague policy after the 2003 lawsuits and 2006 legislation banning affirmative action, corresponding with a decline in black student enrollments and completions. Under Coleman, some have questioned whether the legislation was truly an obstacle, or an excuse to rationalize inaction with regards to black student enrollments and completions as they declined. In Ontario the language was typically general, and race tended to be absent, with diversity often conceptualized in terms of internationalizing the student body.\nThird, the statistical explanation is based on the cross-sectional examination of available National Center for Education Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data available for the universities in both states in the U.S.A. in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012. Before 2006, state-level politics do not explain enrollments or completions. In 2009 and 2012, a variable representing the MCRI for four-year public universities in Michigan is significant in explaining decreased black student completions, however it was not significant for enrollments. This applies not only to two universities, it applies to the four-year public institutions in both states, but it does not apply to community colleges since they are primarily open enrollment.\nFinally, the cross-national comparison between the U.S. and Canada does not have concrete data because UWO, like all Canadian universities from 2000-2012, did not collect student data based on race. However, interview data and the framing of policies in this study shows significant problems with racial incidents and low black student enrollments. So under the Canadian multiculturalist regime, the common neglect of collecting racial statistics suggest the possibility of a multiculturalist parallel to colorblind racism that I call racism-blind multiculturalism.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,789
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
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 ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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 Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,193
Écart entre enseignants0,168 · 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.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
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
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky)Même sujetCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisTravaux en français237 207