How do location, accreditation, and faculty size affect business schools’ ranking?
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
This study analyzed the impact of location, accreditation, and faculty size on the ranking of elite business schools. It used descriptive statistics and inferential analysis (analysis of covariance) to establish the effect of location on the business schools’ ranking while also controlling the influence (impact) of the covariates (accreditation and faculty size) on the outcomes. It found that location and accreditation type do not significantly affect the business schools’ ranking. The size of the faculty impacted the rankings of the programs. However, the pairwise comparison of the critical factors shows that faculty size and accreditation are more impactful in European business schools than in China, the United States/Canada, and other regions. Finally, smaller business schools (mainly in Europe) pursue Triple Crown accreditation to compete with more extensive, U.S.-based programs, favoring only the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business accreditation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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