MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3038021008 · doi:10.22215/etd/2020-14028

A Critical Analysis of Apprenticeship Programs in British Columbia

2020· dissertation· en· W3038021008 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gregory C.P. Matte

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApprenticeshipIdeologyVocational educationAgency (philosophy)Political sciencePoliticsGovernment (linguistics)StakeholderPublic administrationPublic relationsSociologySocial sciencePedagogyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines issues surrounding apprenticeships in the construction industry in British Columbia (BC) during the period of 1993 to 2004, particularly the state of the social settlement amongst its primary stakeholders, namely the government, unionized and non-unionized employment associations and postsecondary colleges.It provides a conceptual framework to research apprenticeships as a skills ecosystem, and to explain why successive provincial governments were motivated to impose significant legislative changes on the vocational education and training system.The findings not only examine the motivation, but also the resulting outcomes, using the different political ideologies as a basis to explain how contrasting stakeholder perspectives shaped both.Based on a combination of structure and agency, the primary stakeholders operated within the confines of institutional structures, extant logics and the limitations of their own perspectives and objectives.This thesis examines how the relationships between apprenticeships, the labour market and the post-secondary education system are coordinated, governed, influenced and shaped in BC, as well as how these same relationships have evolved, including the impact of such changes on apprenticeship programs as a skills ecosystem.The period of 1993 to 2004 was specifically chosen as it was a period of bold political reforms pertaining to trades training within the province by two ideologically opposed political parties.The research design applies a case study

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)0.007
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0170.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLabor Movements and Unions→French-language works237,207→