General vs. Specific-referent Instruments to Measure Training Transfer in a Transportation Organization in Canada
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
In this study, we analyzed transfer, as measured by different instruments, and its relation to some of the factors that have been related to transfer in a Canadian transportation organization. Transfer was measured cross-sectionally through the application of three scales to short-distance truck drivers. Transfer was perceived as higher when a general rather than a specific transfer instrument was applied, implying that the choice of instrument could influence the results. This highlights the relevance of instrument selection in the design of studies. Additionally, while correlations between satisfaction with the training, content relevance and motivation to transfer and transfer differed with different instruments, the correlation between accountability and transfer did not. Contrary to the trend of using a single measure of transfer, this study provides empirical evidence of the transfer construct as measured through different instruments. This evidence can be useful in research methods on training transfer to understand better the construct and its operationalization. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it