Stakeholders’ perception of who influences the decision‐making processes in Ontario’s public postsecondary education institutions
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 This paper reports the findings of a study conducted on stakeholders’ perception of who influences the decision‐making processes in Ontario’s public postsecondary education institutions. The study identified and interviewed representatives of those stakeholder groups that are frequently written about as the main forces behind decision making in colleges and universities. This is a qualitative research study in which four institutions were selected for case studies. The findings suggest that administrations are the most influential, and faculty unions/associations are the least influential in Ontario’s (Canada’s second largest and most populated province) public colleges and universities. It is concluded that those in central positions with access to information from all levels, and who are in close proximity to the gatekeepers of the institutions, will dominate the decision‐making processes in postsecondary education institutions. They will be the generators and harvesters of ideas and implementers of decisions. Keywords: decision makingeducationinfluenceinstitutionsperceptionpostsecondarystakeholder
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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