Unveiling university-society engagement – university origin stories from Denmark
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While contemporary higher education policy tends to frame the value and contribution of the university through the concept of societal impact, in this paper, we aim to widen how we understand engagement between the university and society beyond the narrow boundaries of ‘impact’. The broad challenges in demonstrating societal impact of universities, especially experienced by humanities disciplines, underscore a conceptual mismatch between the value of universities and their evaluation, and suggest that a different theorisation of the value of the university to society is worth deliberating. In this paper, we draw from Danish university origin stories to unveil the meso context in which Danish universities operate alongside other societal institutions and actors. By considering who these actors may be, what their contributions were, and why they supported the establishment of universities, we bring to light a hidden and more nuanced aspect of university-society engagement – one that is dynamic, reciprocal, and conceptually embedded into what the university is as an actor within society and the world. Such a historically-informed understanding of university-society engagement offers a richer, more complex approach which may apply to alternative future policy framings, to more accurately capture the significance of the university to society and vice versa.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it