Publish and Politics: An Examination of Business School Faculty Salaries in Ontario
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Business faculty represent an intriguing platform from which to examine the interplay between human capital theory and legitimacy. We examine a cohort of Canadian business school scholars over 10 years, through the theoretical framework of human capital and legitimacy to gain insight into how factors interact differently in their environment. We show the importance of both human capital and external legitimacy on faculty compensation, highlighting the role of movement as a partial mediator between general human capital (publication number and quality) and compensation, and as a full mediator between external legitimacy (journal editorship and editorial board membership) and compensation. In addition, we found that external legitimacy (journal editorship and professional roles) interacted with movement to impact faculty compensation. We make a unique theoretical contribution by examining how individuals’ estimates of their knowledge and comparative value impacts individual compensation trajectories, and ultimately the business schools themselves. Our study has implications for the management of knowledge industries as well as for the curricula design of business schools.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it