Ethical Issues and Codes of Ethics: Views of Adult Education Practitioners in Canada and the United States
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
Although the ethics of practice has become increasingly visible in the adult education literature over the past two decades, little empirical research has been done to inform the dialogue and debate. The purpose of this study was to examine the views of adult education practitioners in British Columbia about the need for a code of ethics and about the ethical issues, concerns, and dilemmas experienced in their practice. The study was an approximate replication of research carried out in Indiana reported by McDonald and Wood. This study was undertaken to broaden the empirical database within adult education, provide further insight into the ethics of practice, and determine similarities and differences between Canadian and American adult educators in their encounters with ethical issues and their views about codes of ethics. Major findings confirm positive practitioner views about codes of ethics and are generally consistent with the findings reported by McDonald and Wood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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