Bringing Institutions and Inclusion Together: A Multi-Level Theoretical Integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic siloes are inhibiting progress on both diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and institutional literatures. DEI theorizing has progressed at certain levels, particularly at the individual level, but lacks depth as it relates to societal inputs, indicating opportunities for institutional frameworks. Likewise, institutional theories have progressed to identify various types of institutional work, conditions that enable institutional change, and actor perceptions of institutions that are clearly affected by diverse actors, but have notably avoided contemporary diversity-related empirical contexts that could address paradoxical gaps in theorizing. The purpose of this panel symposium is to formally begin a conversation to explore how the two literatures can be meaningfully integrated so that each may benefit from the knowledge that has been established in the other and future research agendas can draw on integrated theoretical frameworks. We bring together panelists with different perspectives to discuss the most promising opportunities for theoretical integration at different levels of analysis in both the institutions-to-DEI and the DEI-to-institutions directions.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".