MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W278683808

Role of Canadian Universities in Adult Education

2002· article· en· W278683808 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tadiboyina Venkateswarlu

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Adult Learning · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipAdult educationEconomic growthHigher educationPolitical scienceGlobalizationEquity (law)Distance educationLiteracyPopulationPublic relationsSociologyPedagogy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The terms 'adult education', 'continuing education' and 'distance education' were used synonymously by Canadian universities in the creation of departments and courses over the years to promote literacy and the working skills of the adult population. Women, 25 years old and over, aboriginals, minorities and disabled adults benefited from distance education courses. In addition to universities and colleges, churches, school boards, non-governmental organisations, businesses and women's groups played important roles in adult education over the last 25 years. Teaching methods like portfolio development, holistic approaches, group sessions and identification of cultural groups helped in transmitting adult literacy courses effectively in Canada. The importance of the role of human capital was recognised by countries on the basis of the USA experience since the Second World War. Budget deficits, the information technology revolution and globalisation prompted universities to make partnership agreements with businesses and to promote accessibility and equity in higher education. Text, audio, video and a combination of the three were used in Canada to promote economic growth, both in the advanced and less developed nations. Canadians and Canadian post-secondary institutions should volunteer their services to the Third World.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0160.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Adult LearningSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207