Academic Dignity: Countering the Emotional Experience of Academia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant emerging body of research has articulated and critiqued the conditions and impacts of neoliberalism on academic institutions, particularly how the rise of the 'marketized' university has shifted the way in which academics are expected to engage in research and teaching. We highlight some of the key concepts evident in the research as they pertain to the emotional responses of academics to the ideological shift that has taken place within the academy. We focus on their perspectives in order to validate the emotional and lived experiences of academics and repudiate the neoliberal conceptualization of the academic as homo economicus. Referencing our ongoing research in Canadian universities as well as extant literature, we overview work on workplace dignity, a countervailing notion that mobilizes positive emotional concepts. Using this as a springboard, we finally begin to articulate an academic dignity-centered approach. By ‘academics’, we mean all those engaged in academic work within the academy, from tenured faculty to research specialists and contracted instructors.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".