Emergence and growth of professional doctorates in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia: a comparative analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the development and growth of professional doctorates in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. It provides an overview of the development of the doctoral degree from its establishment at the universities of Paris and Bologna, and highlights the emergence of new forms of doctorates that have challenged the PhD. The examination indicates that similar growth patterns for applied doctorates have occurred in the United States, the UK and in Australia, but contrasting forces in Canada have reshaped existing PhD programs to meet changing external requirements. For each of the countries studied, the relative difficulty in obtaining consistent definitions of professional doctorates, and reliable statistics on the numbers of students enrolled in and graduating from such programs, suggests the need for continuing discussions within and across countries concerning these emerging professional doctorates.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it