MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538368596 · doi:10.56105/cjsae.v20i2.1107

"Get them young and train them right": Negotiations in a VET partnership

2007· article· en· W1538368596 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bonnie Watt‐Malcolm, Alison Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipNegotiationSociologyPolitical scienceGender studiesSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores a high school apprenticeship program in Alberta, Canada, as an example of a market approach to vocational education and training (VET) through social partnership. While this program is seen as a win-win for students and employers, interviews with different partners suggest that there are continuing negotiations over who is responsible for training, who has access to formal training, who pays for it, what kind of knowledge is seen as necessary, how training is delivered, and how it is rewarded by employers. Power relations among the partners are indicated by the outcomes of negotiations and the lack of negotiation in certain areas relevant to effective training. Further, the lack of government incentives for partnership work appears to make programs that involve college training, however beneficial for students, difficult to sustain even in booming economic times. Résumé Cet article étudie un programme d’apprenti ayant cours en Alberta, Canada, qui se veut une façon de faire de l’insertion professionnelle et des stages en milieu de travail impliquant un partenariat social. Même si ce programme est perçu comme une situation gagnant-gagnant par l’employeur et l’étudiant, des entrevues avec différents partenaires laissent croire qu’il y a constamment des négociations à faire afin de savoir qui est responsable de la formation, qui a accès à la formation formelle, qui paie pour la formation, quelles connaissances sont considérées comme nécessaires, quel est le format de la formation et comment elle est reconnue par l’employeur. Des relations de pouvoir entre les partenaires transparaissent de la négociation et du manque de négociation dans certains domaines liés aux programmes de formation. En outre, le manque d’incitatifs gouvernementaux visant à développer le travail coopératif rend difficile la mise en place de programmes associés à une formation collégiale dans un contexte de prospérité économique, même s’ils sont bénéfiques pour les étudiants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0350.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult EducationSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207