Behind Quality, there is Equality: An Analysis of Scientific Capital Accumulation in Social-democratic Welfare Regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Trade-offs between quality and equality are at the forefront of multiple debates in higher education, and one conceptual tool to approach societies’ adjustment in resolving these trade-offs is the welfare regime typology. Relying on the theory of academic capitalism and using research production as a proxy for quality in higher education, this study analyses how social-democratic welfare regimes resolve the trade-off between comparatively high levels of academic research production, access to higher education and equal citizens’ living conditions. Interviews with 56 system actors suggest that equality is perceived to contribute to academic freedom, public investments in research and the expansion of the academic workforce, those features contributing in turn to academic research production. RÉSUMÉ Les compromis entre qualité et égalité sont au centre de nombreux débats en éducation et l’un des cadres conceptuels permettant d’appréhender les trajectoires d’ajustement des sociétés dans leur manière d’atteindre ces compromis est celui des types d’États providence. En s’appuyant sur la théorie du capitalisme universitaire et en utilisant la production de recherche comme indicateur de qualité dans l’enseignement supérieur, cette étude examine comment les États sociaux-démocrates atteignent des niveaux de production de recherche importants tout en préservant l’accessibilité à l’enseignement supérieur et l’égalité entre les citoyens. Des entretiens avec 56 acteurs-clés des systèmes d’enseignement supérieur suggèrent que l’égalité sociale contribue à la production de recherche en ce sens qu’elle protège la liberté universitaire, encourage les investissements publics en recherche et augmente le bassin de recrutement de chercheurs universitaire.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".