MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W120546875 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v18i1.114

Trends in Canadian faculties of education: An overview of graduate programs, curricular offerings, exit requirements, and modes of delivery.

2008· article· en· W120546875 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jason Brent Ellis, Jonathan G. Bayley, Carla Abreu Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumModalitiesMedical educationGraduate studentsPsychologyGraduate educationSociologyHigher educationPedagogyLibrary sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This research investigated universities registered with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) whose primary instructional language was English. A content analysis was performed on university web pages related to the following content: (a) frequency of graduate programs being offered, (b) types of degrees being offered, (c) frequency and variation of program of study offerings, (d) variation of exit requirements, and (e) modalities of course delivery. This research provides an overview and analysis of graduate level programs, more precisely Masters and Doctorate degrees, offered through faculties of education in Canada. An understanding of the findings of this research may benefit Canadian university administrative bodies in providing a source in which they may compare findings with their current offerings and programming. Prospective students of graduate programs in education may also benefit from the information provided in this study when choosing a program of study by ameliorating their knowledge of current programs, curriculum offerings, and modes of course delivery being offered by faculties of education in Canada.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.465
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.046 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207