MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W165872049 · doi:10.14264/158683

Defining the legal contours of academic freedom of educators in their creation and utilisation of online tools and technologies in higher e-learning

2007· dissertation· en· W165872049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Noel Ramiscal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe University of Queensland · 2007
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcademic freedomAutonomyHigher educationSociologyArticulation (sociology)State (computer science)PedagogyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsMathematics educationPublic relationsLawEngineeringPsychologyComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines the concept of “academic freedom” of educators and its legal application in tertiary education, particularly in higher e-learning. The research initially showed that the theories of academic freedom of educators were rooted in the theory of the university that found modern articulation in the Germanic concept of “Freiheit der Wissenschaft” in the 1800s. This was based on earlier notions that educators were the university, when they wielded the power to dictate the content and administration of learning. The research demonstrates that this concept which was carried over into the 20th century, provided the seeds by which the individual academic freedoms of educators to teach, research, disseminate their scholarly work and engage in other legitimate activities, can be controlled, curtailed and even repressed by states and institutions. The thesis examines and exposes the legal ontological flaw of theories of academic freedom of educators that are dependent on the autonomy of universities. A different holistic framework based on the human rights of educators is examined in the form of the 1997 UNESCO/ILO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Higher Education Teaching Personnel (1997 Recommendation). The thesis traces and analyses the underpinning legal principles, as well as the history and status of the 1997 Recommendation. It recognises that the 1997 Recommendation provides a basic legal framework that will protect the rights and freedoms of educators in higher education that can withstand the vagaries of technology, resist institutional encroachment and challenge state acts that violate educators’ freedoms. The 1997 Recommendation merely contains general principles on higher education, and the subsequent documents produced relative to it, did not elucidate on the academic freedoms of educators in higher e-learning. This is its major shortcoming, considering that e-learning is projected as a major means of solving logistical and legal concerns regarding access to education, which is considered a human right. Educators occupy a central place in this scheme. While the historic 100 million mark of tertiary students was reached in this century, there is a projected shortage of educators within the next decade. The status of educators and their academic freedoms as the research shows are far from certain. The thesis aims to address this lacuna. It is a multidisciplinary project that straddles three disciplines: law, technology and education. It uses technological and educational examples, case studies and legal controversies from several jurisdictions that include the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Philippines, and to some extent Canada, in expounding the Recommendation’s principles and extending and applying them to educators in higher e-learning. The 1997 Recommendation was gravely deficient in another important area: it did not provide any standard for the protection of the intellectual property rights of educators over their creations. The thesis considers this issue in the context of e-learning and advocates for the validation of educators’ ownership of their digital works, by using a human rights perspective on intellectual property rights. This perspective is in accord with the general spirit of the 1997 Recommendation. Armed with this approach, the thesis critically scrutinises several institutional policies and practices in the jurisdictions selected for the study, and found that most of them violate the material and moral rights of educators as human beings over their creations. In light of this, the thesis advocates for the adoption of a standard, called the “educator exception” as a viable legal mechanism for protecting the rights of educators over their works, even if they were produced in the course of their employment. The thesis also examines the legal implications of educators’ utilisation of web tools like metadata and hyperlinks in their e-learning activities and creations. The thesis demonstrates how the creation and utilisation of these online tools can support, extend, and even safeguard the academic freedoms of educators as provided by the 1997 Recommendation. It also offers some findings gleaned from the research that contributes to the protection of educators in higher e-learning. The 1997 Recommendation was emphatic in its conviction that the standards it sets are applicable to all educators in higher education regardless of the political and societal environment they are in, for they grapple with and experience similar conditions. The writer trusts that the thesis contributes to a legal and practical understanding of the 1997 Recommendation’s principles, elucidates on its shortcomings with the aim of remedying them, creates awareness and debate over the plight and status of educators engaged in higher e-learning no matter where they are situated, and contributes to the pursuit of truth which is the essence of academic freedom.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.079
Scholarly communication0.0180.019
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe University of QueenslandSame topicAcademic Freedom and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207