MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246589220 · doi:10.24124/2013/bpgub1563

Finding answers and solutions: causes and effects of information technology skills shortages in rural communities

2013· dissertation· en· W4246589220 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph Ivens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsEconomic shortageProductivityWorkforceInvestment (military)InefficiencyBusinessEconomic growthRural areaLabour economicsEconomicsMarketingPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Market economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative analysis examines the causes and effects of Information Technology (IT) labour shortages in rural environments and relate them to the labour market in Terrace, British Columbia (BC). In rural communities with fewer IT job prospects, it can be difficult to attract and retain skilled IT workers, forming a skills shortage. Some of the effects of this skills shortage can be found in IT workers being underemployed or undertrained for positions they hold, leading to waste, inefficiency and lack of productivity. Underemployed IT technicians are a waste of talent which could otherwise be used to increase productivity and efficiency, while undertrained IT technicians are prone to costly mistakes. It is important to note that skills shortages are not restricted solely to rural communities, although they are more pronounced in them. Some of the effects of a rural IT skill shortage include slower economic growth and technical disparity over urban counterparts, which can contribute to a less diverse workforce. This paper will explain if and why there are IT skill shortages in Terrace and rural BC, using careful study of data in rural communities and it will present realistic solutions to address these challenges from a management perspective. Growth trends in IT will be explored to project which skills will require training investment in the future. --Leaf ii.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207