MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070518623 · doi:10.5172/ijtr.1.1.64

Vocational education and training reform in the Netherlands: seven years experience

2003· article· en· W2070518623 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jittie Brandsma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Training Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsVocational educationRealisationLegislationBusinessProcess (computing)Transparency (behavior)SustainabilityEngineering managementSustainable developmentEngineeringProcess managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomic growthComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the development and maintenance of the national qualification structure for secondary vocational education and training in the Netherlands. The qualification structure was introduced in 1997 as part of new legislation for vocational and adult education. The core questions to be answered concern the extent to which the policy aims pursued with the qualification structure are realised and the possible factors that might enhance or inhibit this realisation. The results of the evaluation show that the intended transparency and responsiveness of the qualification structure are not yet realised. This also holds for the intended breadth and sustainability of the qualifications. Development and maintenance of the qualification structure is based on a model of ‘chain management’. Both the lack of co-ordination within the chain and a lack of steering during the development process are major inhibiting factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.235
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Training ResearchSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207