Session #254 Higher Education Assessment at the Program Level: General Frameworks Group 2: Assessment in Higher Education TIG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the issues that arise in the conduct of a university-wide program review with respect to academic reviewers from other institutions and academics and administrators of the target program and university. Tensions leading to conflicts are identified in two areas: engagement, and response; these are explored and discussed through the experience of six years and 150 program reviews at the University of Saskatchewan. Academic freedom and responsibility are at the heart of these issues which play out through several perspectives, namely among the external reviewers and the review team, among academics within the program unit whose program(s) is/are being reviewed, and among senior university administrators whose consideration is accountability and program quality. Macro tensions and conflicts emerging from these observations are those of academic freedom in an age of accountability and assessment.
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 | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.031 |
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".