La littératie en milieu de travail [ressource électronique] : compétences, pratiques et formation : résultats québécois de l'Enquête internationale sur l'alphabétisation et les compétences des adultes (EIACA), 2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
« Depuis la realisation de l'Enquete internationale sur l'alphabetisation et les competences des adultes (EIACA) en 2003, des questions importantes ont ete soulevees dans les differents travaux qui en sont issus. Entre autres, quels liens existe-t-il entre la scolarite anterieure, la formation continue, la pratique de la litteratie au travail et les divers niveaux de competence? Le present article vise a contribuer a l'analyse de cette question pour le Quebec en identifiant d'abord les groupes de population desavantages sur le plan des competences en litteratie, puis en traitant du maintien et du developpement de ces competences avant d'examiner, en dernier lieu, les liens entre les activites de litteratie et de formation et certaines caracteristiques de l'emploi. Les differences signalees dans le texte sont statistiquement significatives a un seuil de 5 %, par ailleurs, les analyses bivariees ne permettent pas d'etablir une relation de causalite entre les variables. »
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".