Demand for University Continuing Education in Canada: Who Participates and Why?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand for and participation in continuing education by Canadian university graduates who completed bachelor and/or first professional degrees in 1995 are analyzed in this article. Within five years of completing their first degree, in addition to participating in graduate programs, a large number of those graduates participated in non-degree programs and courses for career and job purposes and for personal reasons. Through a descriptive analysis of National Graduate Survey (NGS) data for the 1995 cohort, the authors examined the socio-demographic profile of participants, their motives for participating in continuing education, and their choice of specific programs. According to the study findings, the respondents' labour-market situation, both in objective and subjective terms, was an important reason for participating in continuing education; indeed, more than three-quarters of participants had a job/education-related reason for participating in continuing education. In particular, the study provides information and insight into the demand (expressed and latent) of a targeted university continuing education audience. The National Graduate Survey together with Adult Education and Training Survey (AETS) and institutional data, allow a more realistic assessment of participants' needs and program preferences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".