MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W41547134

The academic as fiduciary: More than a metaphor

2007· article· en· W41547134 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Commons (University of Waikato) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFiduciaryMetaphorBusinessPolitical scienceLinguisticsLawPhilosophyDuty
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing interest in the role of the university teacher, both from a pedagogic point of view and from a legal one. The first part of this article looks at various pedagogic models or metaphors of the relationship between the academic and the student. It concludes that thinking of the relationship as a “fiduciary” one is a useful metaphor, drawn from the law. The main part of the article returns to the legal (or equitable) origins of that concept. Building on the case law and commentary from Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK, the article explores what would be required to bring the obligations of the academic to students within the legal/equitable definition of fiduciary obligations owed by academics to their students. The conclusion is that even if we do not want to force the extension of enforceable fiduciary obligations to encompass the academic-student relationship, the adoption of those obligations by academics should be part of “best practice”.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0090.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.212
GPT teacher head0.479
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