MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791165880 · doi:10.1108/tlo-05-2017-0049

Universities as inclusive learning organizations for women?

2017· article· en· W2791165880 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Learning Organization · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandBrock UniversityMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrivilege (computing)Learning organizationSociologyOriginalityValue (mathematics)Higher educationPublic relationsOrganizational culturePedagogyWork (physics)Knowledge managementPolitical scienceSocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of the learning organization, first discussed by Senge (1990), to determine if it can work as a model in the higher education sector. Design/methodology/approach Using a critical feminist framework, this paper assesses the possibilities and challenges of viewing universities as inclusive learning organizations, with a particular focus on women in academic faculty and leadership roles. Findings It argues that, ultimately, the impact of neoliberal values and underlying systemic structures that privilege male scholars need to be challenged through shifts in policies and practices to address ongoing issues of gender inequality in higher education. Originality/value The paper draws attention to the need to bring a critical feminist lens to an analysis of the concept of the learning organization if it is to be perceived as having merit in the higher education sector.

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 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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.273 · 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