MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116626471

An Examination of Academic Department Chairs in Canadian Universities

2010· dissertation· en· W2116626471 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2010
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstitutionCurriculumPopulationHigher educationPolitical sciencePublic relationsMedical educationSociologyMedicinePedagogyLawDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis is a baseline, population study, designed to create historical and contemporary contexts for and to inform current understanding of the department chair function in Canadian universities. Chairs are explored from five discrete yet dependent perspectives to discern distinctions and associations among institutions, disciplines/fields of study and individuals: What is the job? Who holds the job? Does formal position prescription match practice? Has the job changed over time? What makes department chairs job ready and effective? Canvassing 43 predominantly English-language public universities in 10 provinces, the inquiry encompasses four data sources: (1) 58 university policy documents and faculty association collective agreements; (2) a national electronic survey in two versions – for incumbent chairs, which generated replies from 511 email recipients, representing 38 per cent of the 1,333 individuals in the population approached; and for incumbent deans, sought for their views of the chair function, which drew the participation of 79 email recipients of 269 prospective contributors, signifying a 29 per cent response rate; (3) telephone interviews with 30 chairs and 15 deans (active, former and retired); and (4) curricula vitae of 134 chairs and deans (active, former and retired). The findings confirm the longstanding tradition of the job’s temporary nature, irrespective of institution and discipline. Candidates are usually drawn from tenured faculty ranks, primarily from the immediate unit. The notion of non-academic professionals from outside the university setting occupying the role is viewed by chairs and deans with disdain and is not evident in practice, either in hard pure and applied fields of study such as science, engineering and medicine, or in the soft pure and applied areas such as arts, business and education. The notion of a business-oriented approach to departmental administration appears to be largely a function of an institution’s size and its culture shaped by senior management rather than its location, age and type or a specific discipline with the exception of medicine and engineering. Chairs remain members of the collective bargaining unit in unionized faculty associations during their term of office and typically deem their ability to lead professorial peers with authority constrained as an equal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.758

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.346 · 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