Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Organizational Improvement Plan provides a pathway to addressing the organizational problem of enhancing faculty involvement in program review, such that programs of instruction undergo a meaningful and rigorous review process that results in program improvement. This problem of practice is set in the context of a large, urban Ontario public college. The relevancy of this problem is born out of an increasing climate of accountability and the performative nature of the provincial quality assurance system’s audit process. A contextual and historical analysis illustrates how adverse faculty-management relations and neoliberalism have affected faculty autonomy, leading to the marginalization of faculty in quality assurance processes. An organizational analysis reveals the incongruence between a growing audit culture, embedded in the formal organizational structure, and faculty culture, disallowing the meaningful participation of faculty in the determination of program quality. The proposed solution employs distributed leadership practice to engage faculty planning and design of program review in order to instill in this critical group more meaning and ownership of the process. Coupled with this is an authentic leadership approach that builds a trusting and collaborative relationship between faculty and management. Proposed theories for leading, monitoring, and communicating change are outlined.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".