MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172046048 · doi:10.61669/001c.24571

Integrated Planning: The “Difference that Makes a Difference” in Institutional Effectiveness Over Time

2021· article· en· W3172046048 on OpenAlex
Justin Hoshaw, Erin M. Isaacson, Ashli A. Grabau, Lina Di Genova, Megan Schramm-Possinger, Nicholas R. Santilli, Kimberly K. Daugherty, Michael Ben‐Avie

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntersection A Journal at the Intersection of Assessment and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNexus (standard)WarrantProcess managementContext (archaeology)Process (computing)ArchitectureIntegrated business planningKnowledge managementQuality (philosophy)BusinessComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Higher education is at a crossroads. Institutions need to be increasingly adaptable to unexpected stressors while building more robust systems for assessing their students’ longitudinal, multifaceted development within the context of mission-driven operations. Integrated planning is a collaborative process that meets these goals through the intentional coordination, within and among units, to engage in long-term planning while nimbly responding to changes that warrant procedural alterations so that institutions can meet their strategic goals. In this paper, we demonstrate how the architecture of institutional effectiveness (IE) is inextricably linked to the quality of its integrated planning (IP), with student learning and developmental outcomes at its nexus.

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.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.314 · 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