The Oldenburg Model of Vocational Education and Training for Sustainable Development. Design within the Model Test "Advanced Training to Become a Renewable Energies/Energy Efficiency Specialist (German Chamber of Crafts)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of a three-year (Nov. 2010–Dec. 2013) model test that was part of the “Occupational Training for a Sustainable Development” program sponsored by the German Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training). It was conducted by the University of Oldenburg’s department of vocational training and business education jointly with the Bundestechnologiezentrum für Elektro- und Informationstechnik e. V. (BFE) (Federal Center for Electrical Engineering and Information Technology). The model test pursued two different, albeit connected research approaches: a concept-development and a theory-modelling approach. The first one successfully developed, implemented and evaluated the unique, flexible and modularized renewable energies/energy efficiency specialist advanced training as defined by §42a of the German Chamber of Crafts’ trade and crafts code. The second stream of theory-modelling complemented this by gaining well-founded insight that helps to describe and explain how exactly an occupational training works for sustainable development in professions operating in the energy sector.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".