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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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.
VenueThe British Accounting Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCity, University of LondonKeele UniversityLondon Metropolitan UniversityLiverpool John Moores UniversityUniversity of SurreyQueen's UniversityCardiff Metropolitan UniversityUlster UniversityUniversity of WestminsterSwansea UniversityEdinburgh Napier UniversityLondon South Bank UniversityQueen's University BelfastLoughborough UniversityUniversity of BirminghamUniversity of LeedsUniversity of OxfordImperial College LondonCoventry UniversityUniversity of WarwickUniversity of St AndrewsUniversity of SouthamptonUniversity of LeicesterQueen Mary University of LondonTrent UniversityUniversity of SussexBath Spa UniversityUniversity of HullUniversity of BradfordAnglia Ruskin UniversityUniversity of EssexUniversity of BedfordshireKingston UniversityUniversity of ChesterUniversity of ExeterRobert Gordon UniversityOxford Brookes UniversityUniversity of WolverhamptonQueen Margaret UniversityLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceUniversity of AberdeenMiddlesex UniversityBangor UniversityUniversity of BristolUniversity of Central LancashireUniversity of GloucestershireDurham UniversityAbertay UniversityUniversity of BrightonUniversity of GlasgowUniversity of East LondonLiverpool Hope UniversityRoyal Holloway, University of LondonUniversity of NorthamptonNorthumbria UniversityUniversity of HuddersfieldNewcastle UniversityHarper Adams UniversityUniversity College LondonManchester Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of ReadingGlasgow Caledonian UniversityTeesside UniversityUniversity of ChichesterAberystwyth UniversityCardiff UniversityEdge Hill UniversitySheffield Hallam UniversityHeriot-Watt UniversityUniversity of WinchesterUniversity of CambridgeBirmingham City UniversityUniversity of West LondonNottingham Trent UniversityDe Montfort UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthBournemouth UniversityUniversity of GreenwichUniversity of Salford ManchesterAston UniversityKing's College LondonUniversity of RoehamptonUniversity of WorcesterUniversity of BathLeeds Beckett University
KeywordsSalaryRobustness (evolution)Compensation (psychology)PensionEconometricsActuarial scienceBusinessEconomicsPsychologySocial psychologyFinance
Abstract
fetched live from OpenAlexThe compensation received by UK Vice Chancellors (VCs) has been on an upward trend in recent years and attracted a lot of negative media attention. In this paper, we examine whether VCs receive the compensation they deserve. Using a panel dataset covering the academic years 2007/2008 to 2018/2019, we develop a model to predict expected VC compensation to determine whether VCs are over- or undercompensated. Our model finds that VCs are not overcompensated regarding their base salary, but some are overcompensated in terms of their benefits and pension contributions. However, there is very little difference in terms of characteristics of over- and undercompensated VCs, indicating that on average, UK VCs receive the compensation they deserve. For robustness purposes, we employ a variety of alternative model specifications and subsamples which all support our previous findings.
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.
metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.997
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
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.
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
