Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Universities faced a crisis in the immediate postwar years. It was a crisis of numbers, brought on by a rising participation rate and the postwar Baby Boom. The response, led initially by the federal government, was to enlarge the university system, and later the entire postsecondary sector, very rapidly through the 1950s and 1960s. In the process of rapid growth, universities changed dramatically, becoming much more democratic and laissez‐faire in their management. Then came a prolonged period of restraint, as provincial governments regained a measure of control and the public became sceptical of the benefits accruing from rapidly rising expenditures in the face of tight fiscal circumstances and competing demands. University faculty attempted to secure their earlier gains through unionization and collective bargaining. The upshot, as was predicted, was that universities became much more rigid organizations, resistant to managed change, and focused on the self‐interest of faculty members. We now confront a new and very different environment and face the challenges and opportunities associated with a knowledge‐based economy, with its reliance on research and innovation, and its demand for a highly educated workforce. The federal government is using its new‐found surpluses to invest heavily in university‐based research and development. The challenge is whether universities, constrained by cumbersome and self‐serving decision rules and procedures, now secured in union contracts, can respond appropriately to the new opportunities. Sommaire: Les universités ont connu une crise dans les années qui ont immédiatement suivi la guerre. C'était une crise d'éffectifs, cauée par un taux de fréquentation en hausse et par le baby‐boom de l'après‐guerre. La réaction initiale du gouvemement fédéral pendant les années 1950 et 1960, a été de développer très rapidement le système universitaire et plus tard tout le secteur post‐secondaire. Au cours de cette croissance rapide, les universités ont changé considérablement, devenant plus democratiques et plus souples dans leur administration. Il y a eu ensuite une période de restriction prolongée, où les gouvemements provinciaux ont retrouvé un certain contrôle et le public devint sceptique au sujet des avantages découlant de dépenses croissantes pour faire face à une conjoncture de resserrement budgétaire et à une concurrence acharnée. Le corps professoral universitaire essaya de protéger les gains qu'il avait obtenus précédemment par la syndicalisation et la négotiation collective. Le résultat, comme cela était prévu, c'est que les universités sont devenues des organismes beaucoup plus rigides, résistants aux changements de gestion et axés sur l'intérêt personnel des membres du corps professoral. Nous nous trouvons aujourd'hui dans une conjoncture nouvelle et très différente. Nous devons maintenant relever les défis et tirer parti des possibilités que nous offre une économie axée sur le savoir, qui compte sur la recherche et l'innovation, et sur une main‐d'æuvre hautement instruite. Le gouvernement fédéral se sert de ses surplus récents pour investir considérablement dam la recherche et le développement universitaires. Le défi est de savoir si les universités, assujetties à des régles et procédures difficiles à appliquer, intéressés, et protégées par les conventions syndicales, sauront tirer pleinement parti de nouvelles opportunités.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".