MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227699350 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15278-3_5

Coordination and Stakeholder Interests and Motives

2015· book-chapter· en· W2227699350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Madhu Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnical and vocational education and training · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpowermentStakeholderGeneral partnershipPublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)Private sectorStakeholder engagementBusinessLifelong learningEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various partnerships between stakeholders drive the coordination and implementation of RVA. Cooperation with industrial organisations and the private sector can be advantageous; however, there are issues that the capacities promoted will often be narrowly focused around market sector skills. Public authorities have an important role to play through a broad range of activities including the development of goal-oriented public policies on RVA, the identification of key sectors in the economy requiring sustained efforts to build human capital; as well as collaborative work among different ministries etc. The shared responsibility or “social partnership” model based on close cooperation between the government, social partners and other societal stakeholders is becoming an inevitable feature of the development and implementation of RVA policies and practice. A unique feature of stakeholder involvement in the adult learning sector has been the engagement of adult educators. Canada, the US and UK have promoted RVA as a social movement for adult participation. In developing countries, with vast decentralised systems of non-formal and adult education, NGOs and voluntary agencies, as well as local and district governments are active in imparting non-formal education to socio-economically weaker sections. With a broad range of interests at stake, many objectives formulated in RVA policy respond to economic goals. Other objectives relate more closely to education and training system and qualifications reforms. In all countries, however, promoting and facilitating the integration and empowerment of marginalised social groups and individuals (uneducated and unemployed) and strengthening the motivation for lifelong learning are highly important policy objectives. Despite the various options for recognition according to the interests at stake, the chapter argues that all actors must be responsible for rendering competences visible and documenting them and enabling the process towards a qualification, diploma or certificate in cooperation with national authorities, and without neglecting coherence, transparency and quality. Recognition policies therefore need to reflect directly the level of cooperation and consensus-building between education, employment, economic and civil society actors. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.011
Scholarly communication0.0150.009
Open science0.0020.018
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnical and vocational education and trainingSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207