On Complex Intersections: Ontario Universities and Governments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universities and governments share many common interests and characteristics, but the one common characteristic that receives surprisingly little attention in discussions of their relationship is that both are enormously complex organizational forms. For those who study the relationship between universities and the state, there has been a quite natural tendency to categorize and simplify these organizational complexities. In order to study we define, and in doing so delimit the scope of our analysis; in order to measure we count, and in doing so make decisions about the “what ” we are measuring. Discussions of the public role and importance of universities are interesting examples of this tendency to categorize, simplify and define. We have learned a great deal from the economic analysis of the relationship between educational attainment and lifetime earnings and the macro-analysis of the role of the university in economic development. We know a great deal about aggregate demand for access to postsecondary education, participation rates, and certain types of accessibility. In short, we know much more about the public impact and nature of universities, especially in economic and social terms, than we did when the Government of Canada decided to invest in the
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".