MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975227636 · doi:10.3138/8624-6wh4-5457-873n

University Revenues and Faculty Salaries in Ontario: 1970/71–2003/04

2006· article· en· W1975227636 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Felice Martinello

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalaryRevenueWages and salariesDemographic economicsLabour economicsGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceEconomicsBusinessAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Average faculty salaries at 15 Ontario universities, 1970/71–2003/04, are examined. There were four distinct regimes of government policies and funding of universities, and faculty salaries mimicked the behaviour of funding in each. Consistent with a supply and demand framework, increases in faculty employment are associated with increases in salaries and the same for decreases. Different types of university funding are estimated to have different effects on the number of faculty; and the impacts of funding are decomposed into employment and salary effects. Average faculty salaries performed poorly compared to those of other professionals and construction union rates, but did better than teachers' salaries, which showed steady declines from 1995 to 2001. Controlling for changing ages and ranks of faculty over the period, average salaries trended downwards, albeit unevenly, over the period studied. Salaries rose sharply after 1998, but remained below the levels of the early 1970s.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207