Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 Vocations and Learning (2008)
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.664 | 0.545 |
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".