Stakeholders' Perceptions of Culinary Programs in Ontario Community Colleges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hospitality industry in Canada is growing. With that growth is a demand for \nqualified workers to fill available positions within all facets of the hospitality industry, \none ofthem being cooks. To meet this labour shortage, community colleges offering \nculinary arts programs are ramping up to meet the needs of industry to produce \nworkplace-ready graduates. Industry, students, and community colleges are but three of \nthe several stakeholders in culinary arts education. \nThe purpose of this research project was to bring together a cross-section of \nstakeholders in culinary arts education in Ontario and qualitatively examine the \nstakeholders' perceptions of how culinary arts programs and the current curriculum are \ntaught at community colleges as mandated by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and \nUniversities (MTCU) in the Culinary Program Standard. A literature review was \nconducted in support of the research undertaking. Ten stakeholders were interviewed in \npreliminary and follow-up sessions, after which the data were analyzed using a grounded \ntheory research design. \nThe findings confirmed the existence of a disconnect amongst stakeholders in \nculinary arts education. Parallel to that was the discovery of the need for balance in \nseveral facets of culinary arts education. The discussions, as found in Chapter 5 of this \nstudy, addressed the themes of Becoming a Chef, Basics, Entrenchment, Disconnect, and \nBalance. The 8 recommendations, also found in Chapter 5, which are founded on the \nresearch results of this study, will be of interest to stakeholders in culinary education, \nparticularly in the province of Ontario.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".