MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061857499

STRATEGIC POSITIONING IN AUSTRALIAN HIGHER EDUCATION The Case of Medical Schools

2016· other· en· W7061857499 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Access (University of Melbourne) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGyrotron and Vacuum Electronics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaJyväskylän YliopistoFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaTampereen YliopistoBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversidade de AveiroVrije Universiteit AmsterdamHelsingin YliopistoAarhus Universitet
KeywordsQuality policyQuality managementQuality management systemQuality (philosophy)AccreditationHigher educationAgency (philosophy)Corporate governanceCertification
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

the regulated environment, medical schools are indeed able to formulate coherent strategies in order to pursue improved performance.In their chapter, Manatos, Sarrico and Rosa debate the integration of quality management in Portuguese universities based on the analysis of the quality policy statements of three paradigmatic case studies, which correspond to the first three universities that had their internal quality management systems certified by the Portuguese agency for assessment and accreditation of higher education (A3ES).Assuming integration as the development of quality management practices within organisations which are part of their global management systems, covering different processes, organisational levels and quality management principles, the authors discuss whether the quality management policies of universities approach their different processes in an integrated way, if the quality management policies integrate the different organisational levels, as well as whether universities integrate in their quality management policies the different QM principles.Furthermore, a focus is put on the extent to which quality management is integrated in the broader management and governance framework of universities, namely if it is part of the global strategy of the universities, if those responsible for the quality management structures are articulated with the top management and governance bodies of the universities and how far it is a tool for strategic management.Starting with a literature review on the topics of quality management integration in higher education and the role of national quality agencies in the promotion of quality management systems within universities, the chapter follows with the presentation of the methodology followed, namely the documents analysed and the category grid used for their content analysis.Results are then presented for each level of analysis.From the empirical work undertaken, authors conclude that overall the universities under study have an integrative policy for quality management, which follows to a large extent the trend for integration of quality management in higher education emphasised by the literature.However, there are levels and particular dimensions still in partial or even insufficient stage of development.The authors expect that the experience of the studied three paradigmatic cases can inform the development of quality policies in those universities where quality management might be less developed.In her chapter, Deem compares the methods, cultural and social processes, responses, controversies, 'gaming' and consequences for universities and higher education systems of the recent public-funded national research evaluation exercises conducted in the UK and Portugal.The author starts by setting out the theoretical framework for the comparison, which focuses on the idea of system-wide research evaluation as a 'game', the intricacies of the processes at evaluation panel meetings and the notion of unintended consequences.Then, the main characteristics of the two evaluation exercises are put forward, namely through a comparison of them.Acknowledging the existent differences in the two exercises, namely in terms of

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it