MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286426181 · doi:10.14288/1.0098428

Canadian universities : a functional analysis

2010· article· en· W2286426181 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

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis identifies a university's typical administrative structure for the purpose of establishing a framework which working university archivists can use to acquire control of university records. The organizational structure of Canadian universities is examined with respect to their functions, juridical persons, and their relative competences. This study may be defined as a "functional analysis." The intertwined concepts of function, competence, and juridical persons serve as foundations for this thesis. A function is defined as the whole of the activities, considered abstractly, necessary to accomplish one purpose. A competence is the authority to carry out a determined sphere of activities within one function. Such authority, however, has to be delegated or assigned to a given office or individual, and that office or individual is termed a juridical person. Therefore, a link is forged between a function and a competence through a juridical person, because it is a juridical person who carries out certain duties and responsibilities within a specified function. Since juridical persons create records in the course of executing their competence, a functional analysis establishes the provenance of the records and places the records of an administrative body in the context of their creation. A functional analysis also reveals and explains the relationships and bonds between the records, record series, and record groups that comprise an administration's archival residue. These objectives -- understanding the organizational structure of the administrative body, identifying its functions, determining the provenance of its records, and placing records in the context of the activities that generate them — help archivists and records managers acquire a fundamental level of intellectual control over the administrative body's records. Without this knowledge, archivists and records managers cannot proceed with any of their own practices. By studying the history and development of universities from the Middles Ages to the twentieth century, this thesis identifies four functions which are common to all universities: Sustaining Itself, Teaching, Research, and Service to the Community. A number of juridical persons, either in the form of administrative bodies or individuals who comprise the administrative structure of the university, are then examined, and the functions with which with they are entrusted are ascertained by studying their competences. As a result of this analysis, the typical organizational structure of a university is revealed, the functional provenance of records created by universities (as a whole) are identified, and its records are placed in the context of the activities that generate them.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.182 · 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