An examination of the new vocationalism and its influence on college-university articulation policies in Ontario: 1962-2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This descriptive qualitative study examines how the ‘new vocationalism’ influenced the \nhistorical evolution of credit transfer policies between college and university institutions \nin Ontario. I used discourse analysis under the framework of interpretive policy analysis \nin order to critically analyze documents reflecting college-university articulation policies \nin Ontario, from 1962 to 2000. Interpretive policy analysis has been applied as a research \nmethod to provide: a) a chronological overview of the data, and b) an analysis of the new \nvocational discourse. Using a neo-Marxist lens, I investigate the larger political and \neconomic influences that have shaped postsecondary policies under the ‘new \nvocationalism,’ including key concepts such as capitalism, hegemony, and alienation. I \nassert that articulation agreements - influenced by new vocational discourses - were \ndeliberately implemented by the government of Ontario since the 1960s, in order to \nreorient post-secondary education to the marketplace and fulfill the needs of the ‘new \nknowledge economy.’
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".