MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993089515 · doi:10.1525/si.2008.31.2.183

University Administrators as Information Tacticians: Understanding Transparency as Selective Concealment and Instrumental Disclosure

2008· article· en· W1993089515 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSymbolic Interaction · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)PopularityReflexivitySociologyPublic relationsBusinessPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite its burgeoning popularity, the concept of administrative transparency has received little attention from interpretivist sociologists. Symbolic interactionism offers a theoretical and methodological agenda for understanding administrative transparency that departs from the more common quantitative‐ and factor‐based approaches. With an emphasis on educational administration, this article defines and examines how university administrators accomplish transparency in their everyday activities. Data from in‐depth semistructured interviews identify administrative transparency as a reflexive act of concealment and disclosure. These activities are further described by what are identified as silent budgetary bargaining and opportunistic budgeting.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.285 · 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