MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895974445 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v37i1.184742

Prior Learning Assessment & Recog- nition in Canadian Universities: View from the Web

2007· article· en· W1895974445 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceFormalityHigher educationInstitutionSociologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior Learning Assessment & Recognition (PLAR), the practice of formally assigning credit for learning gained outside the formal education system (Thomas, 2000), offers significant benefits to adult students. Previous research had demonstrated that adult students may not, however, be aware of the availability of PLAR. This study investigated the availability of PLAR information on the websites of 60 Canadian universities. The research found that 24 Canadian universities offered PLAR for advanced standing. Considerable variation existed in the ease with which PLAR information could be located and in the quality of information provided. Universities were also found to vary widely in the supports offered to learners seeking PLAR, in the formality of their institutional PLAR policies, and in the extent to which the practice is institution-wide or restricted to specific faculties or departments. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for adult learners and their advocates and for future research. RDA (Reconnaissance d’acquis), la pratique d’accorder officiellement du crédit pour un apprentissage acquis en dehors du système formel d’éducation (Thomas 2000), offre des bénéfices importants à des étudiants adultes. Des recherches faites auparavant avaient démontré que les étudiants adultes ne seraient peut-être pas au courant du RDA (Schmyr, 2003). Cette étude sur la disponibilité des informations sur RDA dans les sites web de 60 universités canadiennes a eu pour résultat de trouver que 24 universités canadiennes offraient RDA comme designation de classification scolaire avancée. La facilité avec laquelle des renseignements sur RDA pouvaient être localisés, de même que la qualité des renseignements, variaient beaucoup. L’appui offert par des universités à des étudiants recherchant RDA variait énormément, et aussi la formalité des politiques de RDA. Il s’agissait de savoir à quel point la pratique s’étendait à tous les départements d’un institut éducatif ou si elle n’était restreinte qu’à des facultés ou des départements bien spécifiques. On étudie les résultats quant aux implications pour des étudiants adultes et pour les recherches futures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.350 · 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