Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores what a selection of Canadian student affairs practitioners saw as the role of their work, the values they brought to it, and values conflicts they encountered. All of these are personal, and all depend on each individual’s experience. Through this exploration, a construction of roles, values and values conflicts was built and confirmed with the participants. Using constructivist methodology, participants were purposively selected based on their contributions to the field of Canadian student affairs, and were interviewed about their role, values and values conflicts. Using inductive data analysis, a framework of categories was constructed from the interviews, and then member checks through re-interviews were conducted to verify that the framework reflected participants’ values and experiences. Constructivism focuses on social reality; the experiences and thoughts of the participants are paramount. Constructivism builds connections between different personal realities and positions, in order to elucidate people’s behaviours and motivations. Participants saw their role as student affairs practitioners to create a learning environment and to support the academic mission of their institution; to provide expertise on student issues; to be advocates with and on behalf of students; and to provide support to individual students. Participants’ values were honesty, integrity and authenticity; having a balance of fairness and consistency with care and empathy; student-centredness; valuing the student voice; having a commitment to equity and social justice; being dedicated to student affairs work; and engaging in lifelong learning and self-improvement. Participants identified that conflicts between values arose in situations related to the overall campus environment; policy and decision-making; interactions with students; and personal aspects of their work. The construction presented in this thesis is intended to be a starting point for further discussion about Canadian student affairs values and practices. As there is little research to date on Canadian student affairs, the study offers an illustration of what practitioners who are involved in the field consider important in their role, what their values are, and the challenges that can arise from holding those values.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".