MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4328003594 · doi:10.1017/9781846152399.022

Convocation’s Pursuit of Power and Reconstruction

2004· other· en· W4328003594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisappointmentResentmentQuarter (Canadian coin)Power (physics)Political scienceLawHistoryPoliticsPsychologySocial psychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As long ago as 1840, a powerful group in the Senate had agreed on the desirability of creating a convocation, and had envisaged that by about 1850 the Senate would in effect be elected by that convocation. That possibility had been accepted as dead, long before Convocation was established in 1858, but there was resentment and disappointment among many of the graduates about the very limited powers which the new body was given. In the following quarter-century, much of that resentment was doubtless modified by the developing partnership between Senate and Convocation and by the success of Convocation in initiating and seeing accepted a number of important University policies. But there remained an ambition among many members of Convocation to see its constitutional position vis-a-vis the Senate strengthened. In part this desire was expressed, and to a minor extent achieved, by successive changes to the internal procedures of Convocation, incorporated in the Standing Orders. And it might be argued that the establishment of the University’s seat in the House of Commons, whose filling was effectively a Convocation affair, might be regarded as giving some extra edge to Convocation’s status vis-a-vis Senate – though electoral manoeuvring and later experience was to show that the incumbent of the seat could be involved in University affairs without necessarily supporting Convocation positions. But in any event, a more fundamental shift of authority to Convocation could only be brought about by altering the Charter and by the award of specific new powers. Efforts to bring about any major shift were unsuccessful. In the 1863 Charter, Convocation’s fundamentally important existing power to accept or surrender any new Charter was extended to cover any Supplemental Charter: Convocation was given power, if they wished, to introduce postal voting for electing nominees to be appointed to the Senate: and Convocation could decide whether holders of new degrees were qualified to become members. There were no other changes until the legislation which re-arranged the constitution of the University for the twentieth century. But there were attempts to acquire new powers which are worth attention because of the contexts in which they were made, and because of the people who led them.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcademic Freedom and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207