MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022964872

Adult Learning: Barriers and Enablers to Advancement in Canadian Power Engineering.

2019· article· en· W3022964872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clayton Mullen, Yohannes Mariam

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Adult Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationLocus of controlAccreditationPsychologyContext (archaeology)Medical educationSocial psychologyManagementMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power engineering certification in Canada comprises a hierarchical, graduated system available to both young and adult learners. This paper offers insight into the knowledge gap regarding factors influencing Canadian power engineers' decision to pursue advanced certification in the Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, with implications for adult learning in the power engineering sector of Canada. Comprehension of factors that influence intentions for power engineering certification may illuminate barriers and enablers to adult learning and provide evidentiary knowledge to support a format that facilitates advancement of certification. The research methodology was quantitative correlational design in which linear and logistic regressions employing a modified Bonferroni equivalent alpha were utilised. An original survey was developed for the study and pilot tested for validity and reliability. The sample comprised 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Class power engineers in British Columbia and Alberta. The dependent variable (DV) was the power engineers' advancement intention. In the context of this paper, advancement intention is an influence leading to the inclination or reluctance to pursue promotion, succession, or advancement in employment. The independent variables (IVs) were time commitment, educational support, locus of control, time elapsed since previous certification, responsibility, and peer appraisal. Revealed in the results were positive, statistically significant relationships between the DV of advancement intention and three of the six IVs. Time commitment, responsibility, and elapsed time exert statistically significant effects on advancement intention (DV). The three remaining IVs that did not exhibit significant relationships with the DV were educational support, locus of control, and peer appraisal. This indicated that the IVs of educational support, locus of control, and peer appraisal did not significantly influence the DV when compared to the significant influences of time commitment, responsibility, and elapsed time on the DV. Comprehension of the influential factors regarding the intention of Canadian power engineers to pursue advanced certification may assist industry and academia with insight into the barriers and enablers to higher certification, and the correlation of decision factors with advancement intention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Adult LearningSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207