MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746424778

Bona Fide Academic Requirements (BFARs): An Educational Leadership Approach to Accessible Higher Education

2016· article· en· W2746424778 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Laurie Anne Vermette, Barbara Roberts, P. Gómez Pardo, Bonnie Blankert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society for the Study of Higher Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDutyAcademic integrityInclusion (mineral)Balance (ability)Higher educationTest (biology)SociologyEngineering ethicsPolitical sciencePublic relationsMedical educationPedagogyManagementBusinessPsychologyEngineeringLawSocial scienceMedicineEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Universities must balance the legal duty to accommodate student needs and the academic integrity of programs. This symposium presents four test questions analyzing academic requirements, and the experiences of two Canadian universities that have applied this analysis to create a culture of inclusion.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society for the Study of Higher EducationSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207