MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921801185

The Student as Inadvertent Employee in Work-Integrated Learning: A Risk Assessment by University Lawyers

2018· article· en· W2921801185 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Craig Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityTshwane University of TechnologyUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of SurreyCurtin University of TechnologyGriffith UniversityUniversity of CincinnatiDeakin UniversityUniversity of South AfricaUniversity of WollongongMichigan State UniversityFlinders UniversityUniversity of New EnglandMassey UniversityAuckland University of Technology, New ZealandSouthern Cross UniversityQueensland University of TechnologyUniversity of WaikatoUniversity of New South Wales
KeywordsWork (physics)Unintended consequencesScholarshipPublic relationsPaymentVocational educationEXPOSEBusinessLegal adviceSociologyPolitical scienceLawEngineeringFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An employment contract between the student and the host organization may be the unintended consequence of a work-integrated learning (WIL) placement. The student, as an ‘inadvertent employee’ of the host organization, can expose the university to risk. A case study involving thirteen Australian university lawyers identifies the legal and reputational risks associated with paid and unpaid WIL placements, and how university lawyers manage these risks through WIL agreements, legal advice and the support of external agencies. In Australia, the key themes which emerge from university lawyer experiences, and the existing literature, are the vocational placement exemption under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and scholarship payments. The article concludes with a series of lessons for WIL practitioners in terms of managing the labor-related risks of WIL programs.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)Same topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207