‘I Might Be Overqualified’: Personal Perspectives and National Survey Findings on Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition in Canada
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
Interest in prior learning recognition among Canadian adults is estimated on the basis of a large-scale national survey and illustrated by an account of the development of a prior learning assessment centre and the individual experiences of participants. Both the common principles and the distinctive activities that characterise the prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) field are considered. The survey finds widespread interest in PLAR, especially in the employed labour force, and large unmet demand for both adult education courses and PLAR. There are significant demographic differences: younger adults are much more interested in PLAR regardless of their formal educational attainment, as are non-whites and recent immigrants. Those most involved in informal learning activities have the greatest interest in PLAR, most notably young high school dropouts. Policy implications of these findings and experiences for wider application of PLAR are considered. The direct learner voices quoted in the text can be seen and heard in DVD clips at www.wallnetwork.ca and www.placentre.ns.ca .
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it