MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992017871 · doi:10.21083/ajote.v8i0.5361

East African Higher Education and the limitations of institutional reforms: A case study of selected public universities

2019· article· en· W2992017871 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philipo Lonati Sanga

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Teacher Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Policies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigher educationMandateAutonomyPolitical scienceEquity (law)InternationalizationEconomic growthPublic administrationPublic relationsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globally, universities are engaged in various aspects of reforms to improve their outlook and relevance. In East Africa, despite the similarities in many dimensions of socio-economic conditions, universities vary in terms of focus and extent of engagement in educational reforms. In order to examine this phenomenon more closely, three purposely-selected East African public universities were studied. Analysis of related documents as complemented by responses from key officials of these institutions revealed several findings: the University of Dar es Salaam’s reforms seemed to conform more to characteristics of competitiveness-driven reforms, the University of Nairobi exhibits equity-driven reform, and Makerere University practises finance-driven reforms. Furthermore, the findings register limitations of effective institutional reforms such as massification of higher education, infringement of university autonomy, emerging technologies, paradox of internationalization, and the incapacity to cater to holistic students’ welfare. The study concluded that, despite the myriad of limitations that the universities face, they have numerous opportunities which if efficiently utilized will enable them run the higher education race more triumphantly. The paper recommends that strategies for reforms should not derail the universities from their mandate to serve their respective countries.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicGlobal Educational Policies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207