Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses the cultural paradigm of ‘commodified knowledges’ in the workplace. This cultural paradigm is the second of two paradigms discussed in this book that shape socio-culturally insensitive, technological artefactual approaches to workplace e-learning research and study. Subsequently, this paradigm also socially reshapes workplace e-leaning historicity for workplace adult education and training, resulting in socio-cultural impacts on the workforce. ‘The knowledge-based economy’ as a concept of the global age comes from the various schools of thought. Each of the theories forwarded by these schools of thought continues to influence knowledge-based economic policy today, whether in regards to information-based societies; knowledge products; knowledge workers; or, technological innovations. These are the global policies that afford commodified knowledges their priority in the (knowledge-based) workplace. Organizations specifically concerned with knowledge governance, now invest in practices better known as ‘knowledge management’. Organizational apparatuses such as strategic priorities, value chains, and business processes, all become appropriated towards the materialization and reification of knowledge as an economic commodity for the benefit of the workplace. ‘Business process reengineering’ continues to have impact on the workplace as both a mandate and method for knowledge management towards the commodification of knowledge in the workplace. Workplace e-learning for workplace adult education and training now becomes another means for commodified knowledges through continuously reengineered knowledge management apparatuses. For workplace e-learning, adherence to the belief in the primacy of commodified knowledges leads to two workplace e-learning scenarios: (a) dehumanizing ideologies (see Chapter 9); and, (b) social integration (see Chapter 10).
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".