Employer Perceptions of Co-curricular Engagement and the Co-curricular Record in the Hiring Process
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
Throughout media channels, there have been concerns about a perceived job skills gap, which in turn have led to questions about the value of a university education. Canadian universities and colleges have developed the Co-Curricular Record (CCR) as a means to incentivize and recognize student engagement in co-curricular opportunities, which research has shown to positively impact student development, retention, and success (Astin, 1993; Chickering, 1969; Tinto, 1987). This study surveyed employers to explore current hiring practices, including the current value of candidate materials and hiring factors, desirable soft skills, and the perceived value of the CCR. This thesis explores the potential use of the CCR in the hiring process, and argues that the CCR can act as a translation tool, by elevating the value of co-curricular experiences in developing and articulating soft skills. This thesis also discusses current challenges and provides a series of recommendations and next steps.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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