MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rethinking Skills Development

2017· book· en· W2726968104 on OpenAlexaff
Leesa Wheelahan

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderpinningCredibilityVocational educationPsychologyEngineering ethicsPedagogyEpistemologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article critiques models of competency-based training in vocational education and training in Anglophone countries and contrasts it to ‘kompetenz’ in Germanic countries. It identifies six key problems with Competency-Based Training (CBT): first, CBT is tied to specific ensembles of workplace roles and requirements; second, the outcomes of learning are tied to descriptions of work as it currently exists; third, CBT does not provide adequate access to underpinning knowledge; fourth, CBT is based on the simplistic and behaviourist notion that processes of learning are identical with the skills that are to be learnt; fifth, the credibility of a qualification is based on trust, not what it says a person can do; and sixth, CBT is based on a notion of the human actor as the supervised worker. The article argues generic skills are not the alternative, and it uses a ‘modified’ version of the capabilities approach as the conceptual basis for qualifications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicInnovative Education and Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207