Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the autumn of 2010 the Browne Report on sustainable finance in Higher Education was published. Since then universities, students and British political life have been in a state of convulsion. This Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) documentary tells the story of how under the Coalition government Britain is moving from a system of mass participation in tertiary education to the most expensive tuition fees regime in the OECD and what this means for universities and the nation. The film pieces together the origins of Browne, its political fallout, and its long-term consequences. Examining specifically the history of tuition fees, the research aims to clarify what tuition fees are, how they work and whether the claims made for them can be justified economically and socially. It does this through interviews with experts directly involved including a Browne panel member, a former cabinet member, an economics advisor to government, a leading academic on UK higher education and the editor of Times Higher Education. The documentary uncovers that the claimed benefits of increasing the fees are in fact opposite to what they will achieve and that the decision to increase the cap had its history long before the Browne Review and the current economic climate, in the reforms of 2004, 1998, and 1990. With no filmmaker or presenter commentary the film tells the story through the voices of the interviewees alongside carefully chosen archival footage and vox pops from the streets of London; city workers, parents, past and present students. Callaghan was responsible for research, production and editing and co-directed with Martin McQuillan. Nominated for an award by the British Universities Film and Video Council, screened at a number of festivals and featured on Times Higher Education and Research Fortnight.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.247 | 0.203 |
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".