Issues in Forming School District Consortia to Provide Distance Education: Lessons from Alberta
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
onsortia are a popular way for organizations to extend their activities without incurring the costs involved to expand their own operations. School system consortia developed in Alberta in response to the Alberta Government's decentralization of distance education in 1989. Jurisdictions formed consortia to co-operate, to pool resources, and to be cost-effective. The five consortia provide many examples of the issues faced in developing and operating of consortia, and from these eight issues, implications are drawn. Finally, Kanter's conceptualization provides a framework for identifying varieties of consortia according to intent and interdependence. Les organisations ont volontiers recours aux consortiums afin d'etendre leurs activites, puisque ce moyen leur permet d'eviter les depenses habituellement liees a l'expansion de leurs operations. En Alberta, des circonscriptions scolaires ont donc mis sur pied des consortiums a la suite des mesures de decentralisation de l'education a distance entreprises par le gouvernement de cette province en 1989. Les consortiums ont ainsi ete constitues par ces circonscriptions dans le but de collaborer, de partager leurs ressources et de reduire leurs couts. L'article decrit ces cinq consortiums, brosse un tableau des problemes survenus au cours de leur mise sur pied et de leur fonctionnement, et analyse notamment huit problemes ainsi que leurs repercussions. Finalement, la conceptualisation faite par Kanter offre une structure d'identification des divers consortiums possibles selon les objectifs vises et leur interdependance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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