MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399847264 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v48i2.54923

<i>No Neutral Ground: Standing by the Values We Prize in Higher Education</i> by Robert B. Young

2002· article· en· W4399847264 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Carolin Kreber

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommon groundPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No Neutral Ground attempts to provide guidance in answering the question "What is your institution?"Young argues that values form the identity of a college or university and also represent the institution to the public.As values guide the academy and ultimately help determine the beliefs and behaviors of society, it is a fundamental responsibility of institutions of higher education to identify the values they prize.Value neutrality in higher education is revealed as an illusion.Values need to be identified and transmitted.Before values can be transmitted, however, it is important for institutions, just as it is for individuals, first to find their own identity and then develop integrity, which is given when institutions act on the values they prize in specific contexts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207