Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weber’s contribution of the bureaucratic ideal type to administrative theory, and his delineation of the three authority types are well known. However, these constructs are often not presented accurately as ideal-typical forms devised to study social institutions in theirhistorical development as Weber intended. More importantly, for education, his subjective and valuational approach to social action, necessary to his interpretive social analysis, is neglected. This article traces Weber’s discussion of education through a number of his texts notusually referenced in educational administration, along with the better known Economy and Society. Education, viewed from this broader perspective in Weber’s writings, is seen to beinextricably interconnected with the development of religious, economic and political institutions, most importantly as it contributes to the problem of the ‘iron cage’ of rationalization, or the bureaucratization, of modern society. The possibilities for leadership in education in a rationalized world, that is, for the exercise of individual freedom and charisma, and even democracy, or in value terms, the reassertion of end valuesover rationalized means, appear to be increasingly grim. The consequence for higher education is the loss of autonomy and academic freedom that can currently be seen in the debate over the corporatization and commercialization of education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".