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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amidst projected shortages of skilled workers, policy measures to retain older workers in employment include increasing their participation in learning. However, the few studies produced to date examining older workers’ learning suggest complexities not recognized in human capital conceptions of skill development and assumptions of declining seniors’ participation. To build on these studies, particularly in older professionals’ learning, which has received little attention despite concerns regarding professional transitions in a knowledge economy, this article examines older professionals’ approaches to and conceptions of learning. The study involved 816 accountants’ survey responses and 60 interviews with older (50+) Certified Management Accountants in Canada. Far from withdrawing from learning, these older professionals are particularly focused in what, when and how they engage. Their enactments are complex, and demonstrate ambivalences related to discourses of both age and learning. More fundamentally, they negotiate the various pressures associated with new capitalism strategically: deliberately complying with some, refusing others, and generally resisting subjectification either as excluded ‘older workers’ or as continuous learners.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it