PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE-BASED UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF ENSURING THE EFFICIENCY OF EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article analyzes the principles of good corporate governance; good university governance (in particular, those developed by the Committee of University Chairs of Great Britain, Goldsmith University of London, University of Toronto, Association of Universities of the Netherlands, Universities and Colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; principles that were identified at the intersection of the phenomena of good university governance and good corporate governance; principles of state and public governance in education. Besides best practices in good university governance in the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are analyzed. On the basis of the presented analysis, the principles of public and private-based university governance in the context of ensuring the efficiency of educational activities are theoretically substantiated. Such principles are: the principle of engagement (ensuring the appropriate and meaningful engagement of all stakeholders in the governance process and the implementation of such a model of university governance that involves joint activities and cooperative relationships between various governance structures); the principle of consensus collaboration (ensuring the common interests' fullfilment of all stakeholders, ensuring transparent and democratic procedures of self-governance and co-governance); the principle of efficiency (focusing on the most efficient use of resources in order to ensure sustainability and environmental protection; ensuring reliability, efficiency and flexibility of all governance processes and structures; orientation towards achieving optimal results; ensuring accountability, transfer of powers, consultative nature of activities, balance of open/confidential discussions, provision of necessary and timely information); the principle of optimality and relevant model (the most optimal use of resources and the creation of such a governance infrastructure that: is guided by the rule of law, provides for the implementation of decisions and supervision of activities, focused on increasing efficiency, effectiveness, creating comparative advantages for the university; developing such processes and structures of public- private governance, which correspond to the nature, scale and structure of the university); the principle of ensuring sustainability (focus on long-term strategic development, alignment of strategic priorities and vision with the interests of all stakeholders, effective control and risk management, increasing the level of capacity and viability of universities, their adaptation to changing environmental conditions); the principle of leadership (sensitive to the context, honest, interactive, aimed at realizing the mission and vision of the university, ensuring the engagement of stakeholders in the educational process in order to improve the quality of human capital, develop the potential of universities, produce and disseminate innovations, develop the economic capacity of regions and create regional innovation ecosystems).
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 | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".