Guest Editors' Introduction to Special Theme Issue: Strategic Enterprises Down Under
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and RationaleLike all fields and forms of education, open and distance learning is complex, contextualized, and contingent (Harreveld and Danaher, in press;Nouwens, Erdinc and Danaher, 2004) -and is attended by a particular and peculiar ambivalence (see also Stronach and MacLure, 1997).On the one hand, open and distance learning is often accompanied by commentaries about access, equity, and social justice, whereby the empowering and libratory potential of learning in one's own place/ space and at one's own pace/ timescale is highlighted and lauded.On the other hand, open and distance learning is as subject as any other form of educational provision to the influence of forces associated with late capitalism and globalization, at least some of which are linked with the potential destruction of family, workplace, and community relationships and social capital (Rowan, Bartlett and Evans, 1997).This enduring complexity and ambivalence are represented starkly in this first theme issue of the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning to be devoted to a single country, Australia.Strategic Enterprises Down Under: Engaging Drivers of Change in Australian Universities' Open and Distance Learning Provision presents six research-based and refereed studies of key issues pertaining to open and distance learning as it is enacted through a number of 'pressure points' in Australian contemporary universities.As we elaborate below, these pressure points resonate far beyond the geographical space of 'the land down under;' they are associated integrally with the reconfiguration and transformation throughout the Western world of the welfare state into an uncertain amalgam of corporate managerialism and economic rationalism, characterized by the principle of 'user pays,' post compulsory educational pathways, and the construction of learning as a good to be bought and sold (Danaher, Gale and Erben, 2000).Within this broader context, this theme issue of the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning focuses on a topic in Australian universities' open and distance learning provision that is also of concern in most other countries.This topic is the multiple forms of engagement with the drivers of change underpinning such provision.These drivers are many and varied, and include concerns with benchmarking and standards; assuring and ensuring quality; the internationalization of both curriculum and competition; the commodification of knowledge; the massification of higher education; and the increasing reliance on non-government funding sources.In many respects, the field of open and distance learning provides a lightning rod or a litmus test for the impact and implications of these drivers of change in the Australian university system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.072 |
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".