Comparative Analysis of Legislative Provision of Adult Education in the USA and Canada (Case Study: Professional Development of Tourism Employees)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Today Ukraine is in the process of establishing an integral base for adult education and the system of employees’ professional development. Hence, the research of the experience of the countries with a fixed, ramified, but integral system of normative and juridical documents in the above-mentioned fields can be of great use. Addressing to the USA and Canada is caused by the fact that in these countries the questions of vocational training and professional development of employees are juridically regulated. The article represents the results of the comparative analysis of legislative provision of professional development of employees in the USA and Canada in general, and tourism employees, in particular. Laws for analysis were taken from official sites of state and federal bodies. All of them have been systemized into 4 categories: laws on employment, on human resources, on vocational training and professional development, adult education. Common and different features of both countries have been defined. It has been determined that legislative bases of the USA and Canada are ramified and diverse, but at the same time they are integral and coherent. The analysis has shown that they have a lot of common features, similarity of normative and juridical documents, which is caused, mainly, by the geographical location of these countries, by the market economy which they both have, by similar social problems and common development trends. It has also been found out that Canada has a unique federal program EMERIT aimed at continuous learning of tourism employees and their professional development. The study of foreign experience allowed us to distinguish the progressive ideas to be applied to the development of Ukrainian legislative provision.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".