An Identity for Canadian University Education
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
A distinct lack of clarity regarding the identity of university-based continuing education seems commonplace. Continuing educators have tended to focus on the institutional structure of continuing education, linking its identity to its degree of centralization, size of budget, and whether it houses its own faculty members. This paper suggests starting with the function of continuing education, regardless of how and by whom it is carried out. It then proceeds to identify some key values that might guide the practice of continuing education, arguing that in some cases, these values must be in tension with the impulses of the broader institution.Universities today, by necessity, are large bureaucratic institutions with little flexibility. This situation provides continuing education with the opportunity to address the gaps or tensions in the system by offering programs that are more responsive to participants' needs and that allow for a deeper exploration of the values of specific interest groups. UCE programs can also provide alternative entry points to those who want to further their education but have little access to mainstream university programs. Finally, continuing educators can help communities of interest connect with relevant university departments and thereby contribute to the university's mission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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