Bibliographic record
Abstract
That professors and students must have the freedom to pursue what interests them intellectually–no matter the degree to which critics from inside or outside the academy might consider such enthusiasms to be esoteric, impractical, irrelevant, unprofitable, or controversial–is arguably the dominant, commonsensical core of the discourse supporting institutionalized academic freedom in Canadian universities. Whether one adheres to ‘old-fashioned’ ideas about the purposes of higher education being to facilitate, through liberal arts programmes, broadly-based understandings about the natural and social worlds, with the aim of producing graduates who are prepared to participate in society as well-rounded, socially responsible citizens, or to ‘new-fashioned’ ideas about higher education’s duty to (re)produce, through professional, practice- and skills-based programmes, workers and consumers who are prepared to fully participate in a capitalistic, globalized, and highly competitive economy, intellectual freedom is the conceptual basis upon which participants of public higher education can justify their arguments about what it means to ‘educate’, to ‘get an education’, and to ‘be educated’ in academically ‘free’ institutions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".