MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003941549 · doi:10.1007/s12186-007-9004-8

Introduction for the First Issue

2008· article· en· W2003941549 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVocations and Learning · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This first edition of Vocations and Learning: Studies in vocational and professional education comprises contributions that indicate something of the journal's scope, focuses and purposes.Offered here are contributions from Canadian, British, Norwegian and German scholars that aim to understand further the nature of the occupations that individuals engage in and their learning for and through those occupations.Tara Fenwick's paper discusses the experiences of women contract workers in the education and health sectors in Canada.Despite buoyant labour markets, it seems an increasing portion of workforces in advanced economies are becoming contract workers.This often requires individuals engaging in these forms of work to develop a range of capacities that go beyond those usually required for their occupational practice, yet are essential for their viability as workers.Fenwick reports this development often has to occur in relatively solitary circumstances of these workers' employment and engages them in negotiations with sometimes contradictory purposes, as identified in the paper.This work, the skills required, their development and these negotiations also have gendered qualities.Yet, these women's work is enacted within professional practices (i.e.education and health) where such negotiations may be easier for these women contract workers, than for those in other occupations.Although contract work is often aligned to involuntary contingent work and workers, a number of the participants in Fenwick's study reported electing to engage in this kind of work to secure more expansive and satisfying work roles.Indeed, the exercise of choice to take up this form of employment was selected by a number of these women because of disaffection with the restrictive and unfulfilling character of previous work roles.Some of these women were reported to possess

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.313 · 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