MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388824738 · doi:10.61186/johepal.4.3.157

Rethinking University Presidencies in Canadian Higher Education

2023· article· en· W4388824738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lawrence A. White

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Higher Education Policy And Leadership Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHigher educationLibrary scienceComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the evolving role of university presidents in Canada. The university president is accountable for the successful operation of a university and achieving its strategic goals. The role has become complex due to factors such as the absence of a standard definition of a university, decentralization of funding, and increased competition for student enrollment and research funding. Universities have grown considerably, leading to more diverse and activist populations, larger budgets, and the need for more people to manage internal and external relationships. University presidents must now balance the interests of various stakeholders such as faculty, boards, alumni, governments, and learners. They must also plan for and address the challenges created by system modernization and enterprise technologies, internationalization, campus health and security, changing governments, shifting policy directions, climate change, social justice, and neoliberalism. This article argues that university presidents must possess strong communication skills, impeccable management acumen, and the ability to relate to the evolving realities of learners. This article concludes that the role of university president has evolved from being presiding figures to being accountable leaders who must navigate the complex demands of the modern university system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.368
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.101 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Higher Education Policy And Leadership StudiesSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207