Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is the result of a research which has been conducted for Higher Education Planning and the Research Committee of the Ministry of Culture and Higher Education of Iran. The article covers (1) The world's rapid development at the upcoming new century and the necessity of developing higher education plans, programs and activities; (2) The objectives and methods of investigating Canadian higher education experiences; (3) Policy making in the Canadian higher education and the problem of higher education; (4) The Canadian universities management boards and the process of decision-making in higher education; (5) The financial sources and expenses of higher education in Canada and the province of Ontario; (6) Faculty members of the universities and other higher education institutes; (7) Students of the university and other of higher education; (8) Evaluation of the university activities with regard to the evaluative indicator of higher education in Canada. The results of this investigation indicate that the universities and institutions of higher education in the industrially well developed country of Canada arc, from a classical point of view, working appropriately, but many Canadian scholars and evaluation experts are not very satisfied in this concern. They believe that higher education in Canada needs continuous reevaluation and reconstruction. The accountability of higher education under the expanding technological, economical, social, and cultural life of the country is the most important criteria for evaluating higher education plans and programs. It is needed, therefore , to create suitable new policies for higher education activities. Also, what is important for us to learn from the experience of the provincial higher education activities in Canda is to compare our own national higher education with the advanced one in Canada and to think about the necessity of reconstructing and developing higher education activities in Iran.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.031 |
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".