MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019374421 · doi:10.2304/eerj.2011.10.1.64

A Challenge to Metrics as Evidence of Scholarity

2011· article· en· W2019374421 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

VenueEuropean Educational Research Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeNexus (standard)AccountabilityScholarshipSociologyPrivilege (computing)Political sciencePositive economicsHigher educationMaterialismPublic relationsAccountingEconomicsEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Now that universities have shifted their priorities to those of the ‘cash nexus’, they increasingly articulate their accomplishments and validate their existence in business terms for a globally competitive academic market. But corporatizing trends and the use of bibliometric tools that rank publication and quantify scholarity impact a redefinition and reconceptualization of what it means to be a scholar as an instrument of the corporate regime. Judith Butler's notion of normalizing categories is the lens through which this article examines European and United Kingdom corporatizing strategies such as the Bologna Process and Research Assessment Exercise. Key to the discussion is a critique of bibliometric accountability mechanisms that privilege quantification and promote academic materialism. These devices become normative, and, thus, the definition of scholarity to which academics default.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.435
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.079 · 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