MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035453728 · doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12434

Good Faith and Trustworthiness in University Governance

2020· article· en· W3035453728 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Scott Carson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Philosophy of Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateCorporate governanceHigher educationPolitical scienceObligationFaithPublic relationsTrustworthinessRelation (database)Business ethicsSociologyPublic administrationMoral obligationManagementLawEconomicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Journal Article Good Faith and Trustworthiness in University Governance Get access A Scott Carson A Scott Carson Correspondence: Correspondence: A. Scott Carson, Queen's University, Smith School of Business, Goodes Hall, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Email: scott.carson@queensu.ca Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 54, Issue 5, October 2020, Pages 1220–1236, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12434 Published: 15 June 2020 Article history Received: 14 May 2019 Revision received: 20 January 2020 Accepted: 06 April 2020 Published: 15 June 2020

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Philosophy of EducationSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207