Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian Adult Education and Work and Learning Research The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the contributions to Canadian work and learning research from a review of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education/ l’Association canadienne pour l’étude de l’éducation des adultes (CASAE /ACÉÉA) journal articles and national conference proceedings over the last 20 years. The paper reviews the contributions of Canadian scholars to our mapping and understanding of “work and learning” issues particularly in relation to the dominant neo-liberal economic agenda and will focus on two broad categories theory, practices and policy, and women and marginalized workers. From 1990 on it was expected that Canadian adult educators would embrace the view that Canadians needed to accept the mantra that careers and lifetime employment had been replaced by “employment portfolios,” “job flexibility,” constant re-training and upgrading. Adult educators were to become the vehicle for delivering this message and policy and adult education scholars were expected to provide research and education to back up this new emphasis. This paper will map out how CASAE/ACÉÉA members have responded to these pressures and explore how Canadian scholars have resisted this pressure by focusing on more critical areas of scholarship. The research is based on a year-long research project this RWL conference proposal will “drill down” from the basic research and 8 broad categories to focus on and analyze the 2 largest most dynamic groupings of articles and papers indicated above. The analysis will allow us to indicate how contributions have aided theory building and critical understandings and have added to our knowledge of marginality and gender intersects with work and learning and should allow scholars from other locations to make comparisons with their own contributions. The paper can be presented in English and Mandarin.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 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".