About Us: Reflection and Dialogue on the Purpose of University Continuing Education in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is a response to Scott McLean’s (2007) CJUCE Forum article “About Us,” which set out the claims that university continuing education (UCE) units make about themselves on their websites. Using the activities of the Legal Studies Program of the Faculty of Extension at the University of Alberta as a reference point, this article suggests that the activities of UCE units may not be as bland as their purpose statements suggest. The ability of those statements to represent the visions of UCE units is questioned, as is the adequacy of the processes by which such statements are generated. In doing so, the author exposes the need to catalogue what UCE units are actually doing and reflect on why we seem to need to downplay some of those activities. The article concludes with the suggestion that in presenting a synthesis of the units’ purpose statements, McLean takes UCE units full circle to the debate he set to the side: What should UCE units do?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.086 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".