Policy Analysis of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Strategies in Canadian Universities – How Far Have We Come?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Institutional efforts to address equity, diversity and inclusion in educational settings have been often met with overwhelmingly critical accounts pointing towards well-intentioned attempts that have reinforced exclusion and inequity. A new wave of recent developments among Canadian research-intensive universities (U15) is providing a slightly different account of universities’ involvement in addressing the needs of equity-seeking students. This paper presents data collected through policy analysis of 50 strategic documents from 15 Canadian universities from 2011-2018. The findings suggest that equity, diversity and inclusion activities have become a policy priority attached to a variety of institutional action plans and performance reports. As a result, there has been an increase in institutional strategic activities including institutional political commitment (e.g. new equity offices, new senior administration positions, mandatory training), student and faculty recruitment with programmatic and research supports (e.g. diversity admission policies, scholarships, access programs, curriculum changes), accompanied by broader efforts to create supportive institutional climates (e.g. student advisors, awards, celebrations). Inconsistencies emerged amongst how equity is defined in policy documents, resulting in either redistributive or inclusive practices in equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it