New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second half of the 20th century featured considerable formalization of the structures of adult education in North America.There was significant commitment to building theoretical perspectives, graduate programs, and professional organizations around what had primarily been a voluntary set of educational activities.Malcolm Knowles was a key player in these efforts, contributing a great deal to what, at the time, seemed like the right moves for the field to be making.One of those contributions was the "big idea" of andragogy.John Henschke worked with Knowles from his earliest involvement with andragogy in the late 1960s and built his career around the concept.Henschke taught and consulted internationally on andragogy, both theoretically and practically, and contributed a strong corpus of writing on the topic.He identifies himself as the first PhD student to complete a dissertation on Knowlesian andragogy, graduating in 1973 from Boston University with a dissertation consisting of a biographical portrait of Knowles (Cooper, 2008).As somebody who is fascinated by the history of adult education, I was looking forward a great deal to the opportunity to engage with Henschke's text.Based on the title, it would be reasonable to expect a deep and broad reflection on the development, meaning, and implementation of the notion of andragogy.These expectations did not fully match the reality of the resource offered by this book.The task Henschke set himself was to answer the question "what are the major foundational English language works published on andragogy anywhere in the world that may provide a clear and understandable linkage between the research on andragogy and the practice of andragogy throughout the globe within the field of HRD and Adult Education?"(p. 6).The response to this question takes the form of a series of annotated bibliographies almost 400 pages long.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".