Ethical Risks in Work-Integrated Learning: A Study of Canadian Practitioners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WIL practitioners encounter ethical issues, dilemmas, or conflicts ('risks') in the delivery of work-integrated learning (WIL) programs. Ethical risks which are not properly managed can have reputational, legal, and financial consequences for the higher education institution (HEI). Whilst students' experiences of ethical risks, particularly in health-related WIL programs, have been extensively reported in the literature, there is no known systematic study that has explored ethical risks in WIL from the sole perspective of WIL practitioners. A case study of 10 Canadian practitioners identifies five key characteristics of ethics underpinning the delivery of co-operative education programs, as well as ethical risks that they have experienced relating to the conduct of WIL practitioners, students, and employers. The findings can be applied by WIL stakeholders to enhance their ethical awareness, and to improve management of ethical risks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it