MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337146627 · doi:10.20472/iac.2016.021.001

SKILLS AND LEARNING FOR CREATING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES IN ONTARIO, CANADA

2016· preprint· en· W2337146627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rosario Adapon Turvey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCommunity Development and Social Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationProsperitySustainable communitySustainabilityPublic relationsSustainable developmentGovernment (linguistics)Focus groupBusinessEconomic growthEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceMarketingSociologyGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents a pilot study based on a survey of skills and learning in sustainable community development in Ontario, Canada for a country-wide research on place-making for building sustainable communities. Place-making is a transformative process of planning, designing and managing places, with people in mind. By definition, a 'small-urban municipality' (SUM) is a city or urban area with a population of 60,000 that have adopted an environmental action plan and/or economic development strategies to achieve economic prosperity and community sustainability. The research examines the 'skills question' in the labour market such as job mismatch, skills squeeze and shortage of critical talent in building sustainable communities. Its overarching goal is to provide insights on the learning needs, skill patterns and future capacities for sustainable community development (SCD) to establish highly skilled professionals in building sustainable communities. Its focus is on communities representing Southern and Northern communities that meet the population criterion. The pilot survey's target population is 300 professionals of three groups. Group 1 is from local government (Mayors and/or Reeves) to get a local policy perspective; Group 2 from core occupations and professions comprising a broad mix of built-environment professions and public service professionals; and Group 3 are related professions such as regeneration officers and social workers. Group 2 professionals range from landscape architects, urban designers, engineers, environmental officers/managers, housing and welfare officers, urban planners, energy planners and economic development officers/managers. A survey of generic, specialist and technical skills and knowledge of future professionals were made for acquired and required skills by profession and group. For data analysis, the Likert scale data are to be analyzed using Mann-Whitney U (Zar 1996). Cronbach's Alpha is used to provide an internal consistency estimate of test score reliability (Cronbach 1951). R (R Development Core Team 2008) and SPSS 20.0 (IBM 2011) statistical software packages will be used for all analyses. Projections of skill and workforce scale gaps with an evaluation model on knowledge and skills on the learning capacities of SUMs will be done as the current data is still preliminary. In driving the skills agenda to establish the capacity requirements in SUMs, the rationale is to promote meaningful skills development and strategic learning strategy in sustainability education through programs and courses that are responsive, proactive and complementary to the demands of contemporary SCD practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCommunity Development and Social ImpactFrench-language works237,207