MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042540599 · doi:10.1108/02621710010318792

Factors influencing adult learning in technology based firms

2000· article· en· W2042540599 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdult LearningAdult educationOrder (exchange)Knowledge managementCurriculumStrengths and weaknessesTraining (meteorology)Management developmentBusinessPsychologyMarketingProcess managementEngineering managementComputer sciencePedagogyEngineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of applying adult education principles to training in advanced‐technology companies. First, we wanted to identify strengths and weaknesses of the training program’s content and delivery using a framework of adult education principles, in an effort to improve program design, curriculum development, and teaching strategies. Second, this research utilized the framework of the principles of adult learning to identify, describe, and understand various aspects of the program in order to maximize the impact of training on technology‐based firms. Finally, we wanted to identify some of the conditions and factors influencing adult learning in a training program developed specifically for managers in technology‐based firms, in so far as they might inform and provide useful insights for program planners, implementers, and evaluators of management training in technology‐based companies.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.297 · 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