MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317341038 · doi:10.1386/ctl.10.2.173_1

Students as citizens of their university: Student involvement in programme prioritization

2015· article· en· W2317341038 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josie Steeves

Bibliographic record

VenueCitizenship Teaching and Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdministration (probate law)DemocracyOrganizational cultureCorporate governancePrioritizationPolitical sciencePublic relationsCitizenshipHigher educationPublic administrationDemocratic governanceSociologyManagementBusinessLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Higher education is a rapidly changing environment for policy creation and administration. Since the 1960s students have been included in governing bodies and are viewed as central to the development of a democratic organizational culture at universities. However, many student activists and leaders do not feel their interests are being represented appropriately or adequately within the university. Through an examination of the literature on organizational culture and citizenship, and the use of a brief example from a university in Canada, I posit that students are not core contributing members of the organizational culture of the university and are not included in a significant manner in governance. As a result, they are not ‘citizens’ of universities and are instead seen as ‘clients’. This could have potential impacts on student reactions to changing administrative practices such as programme changes and fee structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCitizenship Teaching and LearningSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207