A TESTBED CRITICAL DOCUMENT ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN MASTER OF CONTINUING EDUCATION THESES: AN INITIAL MAPPING OF ADULT EDUCATION IN THE PROVINCE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives The research study (theorizing from the literature) has the overarching goal of producing a systematized analysis of a three-themed subset of existing master’s of continuing education theses at the University of Saskatchewan in preparation for a future full-scale analysis. The analysis provides data to begin mapping the theses topics and where past graduates are working in the province. The study will systematically organize a subset of the theses under three particular adult education themes: Indigenous focus, university extension, and non-formal learning centers. The content of these theses will be analyzed in regard to the variety of categorical elements within the critical literature review process. The topics and issues discovered in the process are related to larger themes within the field of Canadian adult education. Literature Meta-analyses of adult education materials are not unusual activities for practitioners who view a portion of their work to be in service of the larger profession. All forms of literature reviews work with primary sources and are efforts to locate individuals, communities, movements, and moments that can collectively strengthen adult educator’s knowledge and practice. There is a gap in the popular literature in regard to adult education in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Given that the University of Saskatchewan’s lifelong learning cohort courses are place- and community-based with an Indigenous focus, having readings that speak directly to issues and strengths of the province would be highly welcomed. An analogous approach to mapping the history of adult education in Saskatchewan is the long-term goal of this project. Methodology The research study employs a critical literature review framework that is recognized as a research approach in and of itself. Susan Imel, former director at Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), wrote in an article entitled Writing a Critical Literature Review that many do not realize that constructing a freestanding literature review that is organized, systematic, and critical is an accepted form of research. The analysis conducted within this framework allows for a full examination of the contents of selected theses that fall within the three themes: Indigenous focus, university extension, and non-formal learning centers. The testbed process begins by training a graduate student on the critical literature review format and options. Next, all the theses titles and abstracts are read to locate a smaller subset that fits within the three-themed parameter. At this point the system of critically examining the subset of theses is constructed. There are many ways of doing this task (topically, historically, culturally, etc.) but the chosen lens will emerge from the titles, locations, and purposes of the thesis subset collection. Once the lens is chosen a spreadsheet is created with the graduate student and is populated by the theses-appropriate categories (subjects, methodology, design/analysis, theoretical framework, conclusion/results, implications, weaknesses, strengths, etc.) The actual document analysis will then be conducted with the graduate student using this carefully constructed framework and looking for commonalities and differences across the subset of theses.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».