Higher education and the principles of access, quality and accountability: Brazil × Canada panorama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Canada is a country that has a democratized higher education system, based on solid principles of access, quality and accountability. Brazil, on the other hand, is a country that seeks to advance its higher education system. For this reason, this paper aims to understand with the main stakeholders of the systems, the perceptions in relation to higher education in terms of access, quality and accountability, confronting two educational systems, the Brazilian and the Canadian. Design/methodology/approach The author applied an exploratory and qualitative method through categorical content analysis in a multicase study. Data were collected through 10 interviews with government managers, 18 unstructured (open) questionnaires, where 13 were applied to professors and experts in higher education and four to student leaders. Findings The results demonstrate that, for Canadian participants, these principles should guide any nation, as it is something demanded by society itself: democratic access to the system, that the available system has quality and that the resources allocated to the system are being well applied. In addition, Brazilian participants understand that it is necessary to deepen this debate, including a new principle: permanence, as it is a country of traditional social inequality. Originality/value This study presented the perceptions of an educational system based on the principles of access, quality and accountability, the Canadian system and the perspectives for a system that intends to develop in this context in Brazil.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".