Do university rankings matter? A qualitative exploration of institutional selection at three southern Ontario universities
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
Concern with university rankings have become widespread throughout post-secondary education (PSE), fuelled in part by administrative concerns that demotions down the rank ladder will produce negative institutional outcomes. There is reason to believe, however, that ranking ‘effects’ may be partially muted in Canadian PSE due to the (1) national system’s flatter hierarchical structure and (2) the generally inconsistent findings produced by domestic research on rankings. Through this study, we provide a qualitative analysis of how rankings shaped the institutional selection processes of 90 undergraduate students across three universities in southern Ontario, Canada. Our data indicate that these students rarely consulted ranking publications, relying instead on reputational information available through their informal networks (e.g. peers, family). We theorise that the unique structural characteristics of Canadian PSE minimise the influence of rankings within this jurisdiction, and discuss the practical implications of this finding for both scholars and administrators.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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