Apprentissage par les adultes au Canada [ressource électronique] : une perspective comparative : résultats de l'Enquête sur la littératie et les compétences des adultes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans un contexte, ou le savoir et l'information sont consideres comme les fondements de l'activite economique des pays industrialises, les activites de formation de la main-d'oeuvre representent un facteur economique primordial. Or, la presente etude de Statistique Canada fait ressortir une stagnation de ces activites de formation au Canada, ce qui peut constituer un recul dans la position concurrentielle de ce pays en matiere economique. L'objectif de l'etude est de dresser un portrait complet de l'apprentissage des adultes, allant de la participation a des formes d'apprentissage structurees (formel ou non formel) jusqu'a l'apprentissage non structure, dit informel. Les donnees de l'etude sont tirees de l'Enquete sur la litteratie et les competences des adultes (ELCA 2003) et de l'Enquete internationale sur l'alphabetisation des adultes (EIAA 1994-1998) et permettent de comparer la situation prevalant au Canada avec celles de trois autres pays : la Suisse, la Norvege et les Etats-Unis. Les auteurs concluent sur la necessite de revoir les politiques publiques canadiennes en matiere d'apprentissage des adultes afin de maintenir les avantages economiques reposant sur son capital humain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".