The Ethics of Institutional Analysis: Paternalism and Proprietary Access to Canadian U15 Faculty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through an investigation of Canadian U15 faculty experiences with workload a common concern emerged regarding expansions to the bureaucratic and managerial functions of the university that negatively affect faculty members. These functions overlap with concerns about research ethics when Offices of Institutional Analysis (OIA) evaluate research projects, often justified as limiting faculty and student survey fatigue. Yet, secondary reviews by OIAs frequently manifest as additional ethical reviews, seeming to arise from a notion of paternalism whereby universities treat constituencies as property to be managed and controlled. Students, staff and faculty are constructed as being protected by this review process, framed as the University’s moral imperative. These bureaucratic add-ons negatively affect faculty, adding stress to initiating already complex research programs, thereby alienating research faculty. OIAs are normally established and governed by administrators and non-academic staff; they are, therefore, immune from direct faculty input and oversight. We raise concerns about institutional isomorphism, suggesting that discussion and possibly intervention are needed to prevent universal adoption of these processes throughout higher education.
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 | 0.056 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".