Introducing a Revenue-Generating Program: A Post-Compulsory Cinderella Story
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2015 the Ontario provincial government implemented an amendment to Regulation 347/02: Accreditation of Teacher Education Programs. This amendment resulted in the move from a two-semester program to a four-semester program with a commensurate reduction in funding from 2.0 to 1.5 for BEd students, effectively moving them from 1.0 FTE funding to 0.75. The introduction of the amendment coincided with the move to a Responsibility Centred Management approach to funding across South Central University. Hence, the reduction in funding was coincident with greater devolved responsibility for fiscal management at a departmental and faculty level. The Teacher Education Stream (TES) program was introduced at an undergraduate level as a new revenue stream into the School of Education to overcome the fiscal deficit due to policy changes at both the provincial and institutional level. The introduction of the TES program represents something of an enigmatic juxtaposition; the rationale for the introduction of the program was the market-driven pressure of a neoliberal shift in provincial and university governance, yet the TES is predicated on discourses of equity, inclusion, and social justice. The TES program was introduced quickly as a result of fiscal necessity. There was limited consideration given to the potential consequences of the implementation, embedding, and expansion of the program. This lack of strategic planning gives rise to the Problem of Practice addressed within this Organizational Improvement Plan. Wayfinding leadership and appreciative inquiry inform the plan for change, which is further elaborated through Lewin’s three-step model and monitored through participatory evaluation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".