MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2292478904 · doi:10.14288/1.0104592

Study of enrolments and financing of provincial technical and vocational training in Alberta , 1956-1965

2011· article· en· W2292478904 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald L. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocational educationTraining (meteorology)BusinessFinanceEconomicsEconomic growthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cybernation is a term used in a new context to identify a new era. It is a term that is associated with technical development and productivity. The implications that cybernation bring with it are twofold for the discipline of education. The first task that falls to education is the development of understanding and the identification of values that will enable mankind to benefit from his surroundings. Secondly, men must be trained to work the new machines. It is in connection with the second task of education that this thesis addresses itself. In Alberta, government-directed institutions of training have developed over the years in order to train apprentices, technicians and to provide other vocational training programmes. An outline of the development of each of these levels of training is presented including a tabulation of the number of people who participated in the different levels of training. The summary that is made herein of the number of people trained is in response to the question: What number of people are being trained and what is the per capita cost? The question is not unique to Alberta. It is suspected, however, that answers are not readily available and a review of the literature bears this out. Technical and vocational training has a history of nearly fifty years in Alberta. The gradual development of facilities through periods of economic crisis, pressures from enrolment, and Federal financial assistance is outlined before the detailed examination of enrolments and costs is presented for the decade commencing in 1956. The number of apprentices in training in 1956 was 2,195. By the year 1965 the number had increased to 4,572. In relative terms the increase was from 1.9 per one thousand population to 3.1. A similar increase was evident in the training of technicians. In 1956 the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology trained 303 technicians. By 1965 the number of technicians in training had increased to 1,701. Of this number, 950 were trained at the new Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. The relative change as measured per one thousand population was from 0.26 to 1.1. The number of persons in other vocational training and non-technical training programmes also increased. The enrolment of 2,379 in 1956 increased to 4,976 in 1965. The relative numbers in training increased from 2.1 per one thousand population to 3.4. An examination of the financing of apprenticeship, technical, and vocational training reveals that an expenditure by the Province in 1956 of $241.35 was required to train each apprentice. However, the net cost to the Province after reimbursements and adjustments, was $148.63 for each apprentice. In 1965 these figures had increased to $328.39 and $191.88 respectively. The expenditure and cost of training each technician in 1956 was $903.71 and $721.43 increasing to $1,464.25 and $750.75 by 1965. In 1965 the expenditure on each technician at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology was $1,989.13 and the cost $1,062.70. For other vocational trainees the expenditure made by the Province in 1956 amounted to $143.18 and the cost amounted to $98.35. This had changed by 1965 to a Provincial expenditure of $388.72 and a net cost of $116.82. The capital expenditure in the form of site, construction, furnishings and equipment for students at all levels of training, over the ten-year period 1956 to 1965, was $241.01. The capital cost was $93.06. The completion of this study for Alberta creates the need for comparisons. The reference points for enrolments and for costs have been established herein, but these must mark the beginning and not the end.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→