Probing the Icebergs of Adult Learning: Comparative Findings and Implications of the 1998, 2004 and 2010 Canadian Surveys of Formal and Informal Learning Practices
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
This paper summarizes the findings of the 2010 Work and Lifelong Learning (WALL) survey of self-reported further education and intentional informal learning activities of Canadian adults and compares them with the results of the 2004 WALL survey and the 1998 New Approaches to Lifelong Learning (NALL) survey on the same subject. Basic profiles of participation in further education courses and intentional informal learning activities related to employment, housework, community volunteer work, and general interests are presented. In addition to being one of the most highly formally educated populations in the world, Canadians quite rapidly increased their participation in further education over the past generation. They continued to devote much more of their time to an array of informal learning activities. However, Canadian adults’ array of formal and informal learning efforts face relatively diminishing opportunities for application in jobs as they are currently structured.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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