MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385868080 · doi:10.59962/9780774850513-015

Public Policy and Women’s Access to Training in New Brunswick

2007· book-chapter· en· W4385868080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan McFarland

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Political sciencePublic administrationGender studiesSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the Second World War until recently, the Canadian government saw providing training -including the sponsorship of training -to the labour force as one of its roles. 1 Since 1996, in the current neoliberal environment, all that has changed.It is now basically up to the individual to Wnd and pay for her/his own training.2 Even during the period in which the government provided training, women's access to it was not equal to that of men.For example, in the early period much of the training was to prepare soldiers returning from the Second World War for re-entry into the labour force.However, from the 1960s to the 1990s, equity did become an issue in labour force training, and some programs that targeted women and other equity groups were offered.Although equality was not achieved, some progress was made.Beginning in the 1980s another group, this one comprised of social assistance recipients (SARs), was targeted for sponsorship in training programs.In fact, this was an overlapping group since most of the SARs were women.Then, in the late 1980s, women-only programs were dropped in favour of a gender-neutral approach -much to the dismay of women's organizations and programs.By 1996, with the changes in the Employment Insurance (EI) program, all equity initiatives seem to have disappeared.In the new programs, such as Skills, Loans and Grants, participants have to meet Employment Insurance eligibility criteria even in order to receive loans.Women are given no special consideration and, in fact, at least in New Brunswick, are under-represented and, in some cases, grossly under-represented among the participants.3 Training has always been an area of federal jurisdiction.However, in 1996 a process of devolution began; that is, the delivery of training was transferred from the federal government to the provincial governments.The timing of the changes brought about by devolution coincided quite closely with the changes in the Employment Insurance program, and hence the two sets of changes are very much inter-related.On 13 December

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0170.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of British Columbia Press eBooks→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→