MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985870405 · doi:10.1080/02601370601151349

Individual Learning Accounts and other models of financing lifelong learning

2007· article· en· W1985870405 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

VenueInternational Journal of Lifelong Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLifelong learningVariety (cybernetics)Principal (computer security)Scale (ratio)Adult educationFinancePedagogyComputer scienceBusinessPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To answer the question ‘Financing what?’ this article distinguishes several models of lifelong learning as well as a variety of lifelong learning activities. Several financing methods are briefly reviewed, however the principal focus is on Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) which were seen by some analysts as a promising model for financing learning for adults and an instrument for shifting initiative, choice and responsibility for learning to the learners themselves, for generating a market for providers of education and training, as well as making individuals and their employers share the costs of these activities. Before the backdrop of the decision by Sweden and Canada to abandon their plans to introduce such ILAs prior to their actual launch and the negative experience of the UK where ILAs were implemented on a large scale but later rescinded, the article tries to analyse the problems that ILAs experienced.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.397
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