Responding to the Field and to the Academy: Ontario's evolving PhD
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
The knowledge economy has increased the demands on our university systems to create innovative, flexible doctoral programs. Some countries have responded to this challenge by developing professional doctorates. In the province of Ontario (Canada), the trend appears to be to re-invent the traditional PhD rather than to develop professional doctorates. This paper traces historical, political, economic and social reasons for this trend. It focuses, in particular, on the case of the longstanding Doctor of Education (EdD) at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT). Enrolment in the EdD program has dropped significantly in the past few years. Drawing on a variety of sources including evaluation data from PhD and EdD students, this paper examines reasons for this development. The authors conclude that the same climate that is fostering professional doctorates is also changing the landscape for PhD education, making the degree more responsive to the needs of educational stakeholders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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