MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1636031626 · doi:10.1080/13639080.2014.887199

“Should I stay or should I go?” Exploring high school apprentices’ pathways

2014· article· en· W1636031626 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Work · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApprenticeshipWork (physics)Articulation (sociology)Flexibility (engineering)School-to-work transitionPedagogyPsychologyVocational educationPolitical scienceEngineeringManagementPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Completion rates are one measure of the success of apprenticeship training. But little is known about outcomes for youth who begin an apprenticeship in high school. This paper draws primarily on interviews with youth who did not continue training or work in their high school apprenticeship trade in two Canadian provinces. Our analysis focuses on why these youth decided to enrol in high school apprenticeship, why they did not continue and what they did afterwards. Findings suggest that a narrow focus on apprenticeship training completion diverts attention from the complex learning and work transitions experienced by most youth. Instead of assuming a linear pathway from school-to-trades work, we argue that partners involved in high school apprenticeship and policy-makers could do more to raise student awareness of multiple trajectories and skills transfer, make apprenticeship training more expansive, and increase the flexibility of pathways by providing greater articulation between different post-secondary ...

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.224 · 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