Engaging with tradition? How history shapes engagement with local communities in universities in England and Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impetus for universities to engage – to reach out, share, and exchange knowledge – with the communities around them is not a new phenomenon, but one that has gathered salience and speed in recent years (Watson, 2007; Hall, 2009; Davis, 2016). University engagement takes place in a range of dimensions within the global-national-regional-local spectrum (Benneworth et al, 2009; Goddard, 2009). This comparative study of six public universities in England and Ontario, Canada focuses on engagement with local communities. By analysing both institutional histories and universities’ contemporary strategic plans, the study shows that understanding universities’ foundations offers important insights into their current levels of engagement with their local communities. Using the local level as a lens not only demonstrates connections between a university’s past and its present, but also offers a counterweight to the prevailing dominance in higher education policy and literature of international and global factors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".