Determining the University's Goals: the Setting of the Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian university has moved from a decade of rapid expansion, accompanied by general public approval, to the so-called "steady state, " of the 1970's, characterized by sharp public questioning of its directions and of its relevance. Criticism from both public and academics alike centres on the lack of consensus within the institution as to its purposes. Certain major factors have the potential to influence a university's choice of goals. Some of these flow out of the network of relationships of the university with its external environment while others stem from the social world of the institution itself. The paper concludes that, given expressions of public concern and what appear to be basic shifts in the fabric of Canadian society — and thus of its requirements of higher education- the re-consideration of institutional goals has become vital. Clarifying Utopian abstractions, and distinguishing between objectives for institu-tional development and for student development, not only sets a framework for evaluation, but also lays a cornerstone for educational improvement and financial survival. Institutional effectiveness improves when objectives are held in awareness
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".