Canadian chefs’ workplace learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the formal and informal workplace learning of professional chefs. In particular, it considers chefs’ learning strategies and outcomes as well as the barriers to and facilitators of their workplace learning. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology is based on in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with 12 executive chefs from a variety of restaurant types. Chefs were asked questions that focused on how they learned, the learning outcomes that they experienced and factors that inhibited or facilitated their learning. Findings – Findings suggest that the strategies, outcomes, barriers and facilitators experienced by professional chefs are similar in many respects to those of other occupational/professional groups. However, there were some important differences that highlight the context of chefs’ workplace learning. Research limitations/implications – The sample, which is relatively small and local, focuses on one city in Canada, and it is limited in its generalizability. Future research should include a national survey of professional chefs. Originality/value – Using a qualitative approach, this in-depth study adds to the literature on workplace learning, strategies, outcomes, barriers, facilitators and context factors by addressing a relatively understudied profession.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 it