Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last decade has seen a development of interest in the nature of \n‘graduateness’. Starting with the (former) Higher Education Quality \nCouncil’s Graduate Skills project in the mid-1990s and culminating \nin the current preoccupation with transferable skills, the question \nhas been asked what the common skills or attributes are that \ndistinguish graduates from non-graduates. In contrast with business \nor government’s interest in generic graduate skills, the view of \ngraduateness within universities is very much associated with specific \ndisciplines and undergraduate education with enculturation into a \nparticular academic discipline. This focus on disciplinary content has \nposed some challenges for the design of Foundation degrees, which \nare intended to be a blend of academic and workplace learning, and it \nalso reinforces the academic/vocational divide. Recently, a number of \nhonours degrees entitled ‘Professional Studies’ have been developed; \nthese awards are designed to offer successful Foundation degree \nstudents a route through to honours which uses work-based learning. \nThese awards vary in content and structure but tend to be designed on \nthe basis that generic graduate attributes, which Barrie defines \n‘… as being the skills, knowledge and abilities of university graduates, \nbeyond disciplinary content knowledge …’ (2004, p.262), can be \ndeveloped outside a conventional academic discipline. \nThis paper examines the pedagogic principles underlying the design \nof one work-based learning ‘top up’ programme which leads to a BSc \nin Professional Studies. It explores the issues involved in drawing \ndirectly on experience in the workplace as the material for higher \nlevel learning. The programme challenges conventional pedagogic \napproaches which are dominant in the university, and emphasises the \nimportance of direct action and experience to learning. The authors \noutline the challenges which need to be addressed in programme \ndesign when moving away from a focus on disciplinary content, \nand explain the importance of a focus on process in reconciling \ngraduateness and work-based learning.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".