MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975985333 · doi:10.1108/00251740410538479

The institution of tenure: freedom or discipline?

2004· article· en· W1975985333 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Decision · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyInstitutionAcademic freedomMythologyContext (archaeology)Subject (documents)SociologyIntervention (counseling)Political sciencePublic relationsLaw and economicsPublic administrationHigher educationLawMedicineNursingHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tenure, the permanency of employment offered to university professors, is discussed in the context of an institutionalized practice. This article examines the bases of legitimacy of this institution, specifically as a mechanism to protect academic freedom and trade‐off for higher pay. An analysis of the cases of two Canadian academics suggests that both of these bases of legitimacy are an institutional myth. By rendering the untenured faculty member highly visible and subject to measurement and classification, they are susceptible to intervention and management. As such, the preservation of tenure is rationalized in a rule‐like way that espouses its benefits and obfuscates its dark side. The resulting experiences indicate some negative consequences of tenure that do not receive widespread attention.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.307 · 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