Quality assurance in higher education as a political process
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
Is quality assurance in higher education a technical process or a political process? \n \nMichael Skolnik suggests three reasons why quality assurance should, in many cases, be viewed as a largely political process: \n \n1) The considerable differences of opinion among different stakeholders about the definition of quality \n2) The likelihood that quality assurance serves as a vehicle for the pressures toward conformity within academe \n3) The tendency to exclude some stakeholders, particularly faculty, from a significant role in the design and implementation of quality assurance processes \n \nSkolnik concludes that it would be better to accept Louise Morley's claim that quality assurance is "a socially constructed domain of power" and design assessment processes in a way that fits their political nature. He further suggests that employing a responsive model of evaluation could make quality assurance more effective. The responsive model evaluation is a collaborative process that starts with the claims, concerns, and issues put forth by all 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it