A Comparative Study of Technical and Vocational Curriculum with an Emphasis on Entrepreneurial Intention in Canada, Germany, India and Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research to compare vocational curriculum in three successful countries in education of vocational skills and entrepreneurship in comparison with Iran. In this study, the practical descriptive research was performed within comparative-study method of George Brody. The purposes, contents, and methods of teaching and assessment were investigated by though the approach of developing the learners’ motivations for entrepreneurship. The results of this study showed that curriculum purposes and contents in Iran and the three chosen countries are similar and they move toward cultivating motivations and skills for entrepreneurship. In Canada and Germany, education of international work force is one of the purposes of the curriculum. The surveyed content of the curriculum of Iran and the three chosen countries are similar and they focus on technology and information, science of communication, acquiring international languages with environment as the complementary contents in three countries’ curriculum. Courses such as management of business and knowledge of entrepreneurship between are common the three countries and Iran, but a big gap was detected between acquisition-education activities and evaluation in the three chosen countries and Iran. In Iran, the traditional methods are used, while in the three chosen countries the main method is based on teamwork. Regarding assessment, various methods is employed the three chosen countries use (such as assessment teams, self-evaluation and evaluation of learners’ research-based projects), whereas, in Iran the written and verbal tests are widely implemented
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".