MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W186951351

The preemptive college: A study of two high performing colleges and the role of presidential leadership

2012· article· en· W186951351 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kent D. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresidential systemPolitical sciencePublic administrationPublic relationsMathematics educationPsychologyPoliticsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why do some colleges thrive while others struggle to survive? How do some colleges increase student demand, while others are challenged to attract new students? What is it that certain colleges do to achieve high student satisfaction ratings, while others find themselves continuously appraised poorly by their students? This study examines these complex questions and attempts to open the black box of understanding what certain colleges do to outperform their peer institutions. This dissertation's primary objective was to examine what happened at two high performing Ontario colleges relative to other similar institutions. This inquiry also investigates the impact of presidential leadership on the success of their respective colleges. There are two broad outcomes from this research. First, despite differences in operating environments, demography and institutional size, these two high performing colleges appear to have the ability to act preemptively; to take advantage of market opportunities faster than competitor organizations. For this reason, this dissertation labels these two institutions as being "preemptive colleges". Second, this inquiry concludes that these two preemptive colleges have a confluence of characteristics that help them to be successful. That is, these preemptive college's four common traits include: 1. Externally Focused 2. Trust Oriented 3. Entrepreneurially Inclined 4. Proficient Leadership Through recessions, technological change, incessant underfunding and a rapidly changing student population, some Ontario colleges have proven to be resilient and are able to respond effectively within this competitive environment. This dissertation concludes that these two high performing colleges have been successful in part because they reflect four preemptive traits that position them not only to survive but also to prosper. As a result of effectively practicing these four preemptive traits, these institutions have enhanced their reputation, widened student access, maintained quality and strengthened their overall financial position relative to peer institutions. These colleges are Preemptive Colleges.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania)Same topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207