The Quality Assurance System for Ontario Postsecondary Education: 2010 ~ 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The period of 2010 to 2014 marked a relatively stable stage in the evolving quality assurance system for Ontario postsecondary education, particularly following massive changes after 2000. The current system consists of three frameworks overseen respectively by three quality assurance agencies -- the Ontario Universities Council on Quality Assurance, the Ontario College Quality Assurance Service, and the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board, each serving different purposes. This paper uses van Vught and Westerheijden’s (1994) general model of quality assessment and Jeliazkova and Westerheijden’s (2002) Phase Model of quality assurance systems development as heuristic tools for the analysis. The following four areas are discussed: formalized quality mechanisms with diversity; the arms-length tripartite relationship with a distinction between self-regulation and government regulation; mixed phases of quality assurance development and the maturing process; and gaps in the system. It is argued that within fifteen years, a comprehensive and relatively mature quality assurance system with diverse but rigorous mechanisms has been developed for Ontario postsecondary education although a few deficiencies exist, including the continued lack of coordination within the system. The evolution of the system appears to reflect a path trajectory of governance structure development of the Ontario postsecondary education system as well as be a result of interactions between the local and the global.
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 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 | 0.018 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".