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
Abstract In response to increasing fiscal pressure, Canadian universities have turned towards managerialism, that is, applying managerial tools of business with the objectives of improving operating efficiency, raising the institution's marketability, and generating commercial revenue. In addition to employing the services of professional administrators to enhance the institution's economic performance, universities appear to be switching from a collegial model of shared governance to a corporate model of governance. An objective of this exploratory study is to examine the current state of board governance in Canadian universities. Results of a survey from 133 board members of 28 universities indicate, by and large, that board members seem to have a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. The boards are involved in setting strategic directions, goals, and objectives, and are making operating and capital resource allocation decisions. They are also monitoring the performance of the university and the president, and are involved in recruiting, succession planning, and determining the president's compensation package. The respondents report that the board committee structure and the support provided to board members allow them to discharge their responsibilities as board members properly. There is, however, room for improvement, especially in the board's participation in defining and reviewing the institution's strategic directions, plans, goals, and objectives, as well as monitoring the performance of the university and senior administrators. Other areas for possible improvement include continuing education on matters within the board's purview as well as providing better information for decision making to board members.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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