Bibliographic record
Abstract
To be successful in today’s knowledge economy, communities need to boost not only the skills of local people but also the utilisation and deployment of these skills by employers. By ensuring that skills are utilised effectively, local economies can become more competitive and host better quality and better paid jobs, while simultaneously improving living standards and stimulating innovation. The OECD LEED Skills for Competitiveness project has reviewed the tools and governance mechanisms which policy makers are putting in place to tackle this policy area in three LEED member countries, Canada, the United Kingdom and Italy, with information on a wider set of policies and measurement tools being collected through an international literature review. This country report for Canada sets out data findings on the supply and demand for skills at the level of Employment Insurance (EI) regions before exploring local policy responses in the Niagara and Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge-Guelph regions in Ontario. The report concludes with policy considerations for federal, provincial, and local levels of government in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.007 |
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".