Measuring Equity-Seeking Students' Satisfaction Levels With Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Initiatives: The Bachelor of Design Fashion Program at Toronto Metropolitan University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>To date, two Periodic Program Reviews (PPRs), the first in 2004 and the second in 2015, were undertaken of the Toronto Metropolitan University's (TMU) Bachelor of Design (BDes) fashion program. The second resulted in a major program overhaul. However, the student surveys used in both PPRs did not explore the satisfaction levels of equity-seeking groups with TMU's Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives, even though these groups represent most of the program's student population. Using literature review methodology, this study addresses three questions: 1. Why have equity-seeking student satisfaction levels regarding TMU's EDI initiatives not been addressed in the satisfaction surveys used in the PPRs? 2. What are key EDI issues affecting equity-seeking student populations? 3. In what ways do EDI experiences and challenges faced by equity-seeking student groups affect their satisfaction levels? This study brings attention to this omission and provides recommendations for future BDes fashion program PPR surveys.</p>
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.097 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".