Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most research on participation in adult education has described participants using static variables, however, it has been suggested that dynamic factors which describe the relationship between the individual and the organization have more potential value. This study included both types of variables when analyzing the factors which influence participation in adult education in a rural Canadian setting. The data for this study were collected during the summer months of 1967, when interviews were completed with 881 household heads in six rural regions of British Columbia. The 126 respondents who were classified as participants and an equal number of randomly drawn non-participants were compared using both static and dynamic variables. The distributions within the groups were tested for significant differences using the chi square statistic while linear relationships were indicated by correlation coefficients. To remove the effects of the variables of age and education from the relationships existing between the two groups a second sample of non-participants was matched with the participants on these variables. The new groups were then compared using the static and dynamic variables on which the original groups had differed significantly. The first and second hypotheses which proposed significant differences between the two groups with respect to certain static and dynamic variables, were tentatively accepted when the original samples of participants and non-participants were shown to differ significantly on thirteen static and eight dynamic variables. The third hypothesis which proposed differences between vocational and non-vocational participants was only partially accepted as the two groups differed on the variables of occupational prestige and income. The findings with respect to the first two hypotheses were modified when the matched groups were shown to differ significantly on only five static and two dynamic variables. On these variables the participants reported better job training and better jobs, fewer but better educated children, and greater formal social participation. They also reported a greater felt need for further education and stated more willingness to give up spare time for this education. A general conclusion was proposed which suggested that the participants exhibited a more favourable attitude to education than did the non-participants. But this conclusion is tentative as the findings of the study emphasize both the need for further research with dynamic variables and the control of age and education variables when comparing participants and non-participants.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".