MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399168413 · doi:10.1080/15363759.2024.2336447

The Recent Emergence of Australian Christian Higher Education Institutions: How They Operationalize Their Christian Identity

2024· article· en· W4399168413 on OpenAlex
Perry L. Glanzer

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChristian Higher Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationIdentity (music)SociologyChristian IdentityPolitical scienceGender studiesEpistemologyPhilosophyAestheticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically, Australian higher education has been statist, uniform, and secular. Indeed, up until 1989, even communist Poland had more Christian universities than Australia. Only in the last 3½ decades have eight different Christian universities and colleges emerged. This article first explores the origins of these new institutions and the historical factors that allowed for the emergence of Australian Christian higher education (CHE). It then employs the recently developed Operationalizing Christian Identity Guide (OCIG) to determine the extent to which these new Australian institutions use their Christian identity to guide administrative decisions. The OCIG identifies the number of publicly expressed markers that indicate whether and how Christian identity makes a difference in key administrative decisions regarding the life of the institution. These markers include things such as membership requirements for the board, president, faculty, and students; the institution’s official rhetoric and mission; the number of required Christian courses; and the nature of co-curricular programming. An analysis of these institutions using the OCIG reveals that Australia’s Christian institutions are observably distinct from their secular Australian counterparts in key areas such as mission, hiring practices, curricular requirements, co-curricular opportunities, and student conduct codes. All of these Christian institutions require core courses that extend beyond professional education. Within the Christian sector, significant diversity also exists regarding religious symbols, funding, and governance. A comparison of these Australian institutions to Christian institutions in the United States and Canada, however, finds that Australian institutions operationalize their Christian identities less than institutions in these countries.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.321 · 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