Still Shopping for Training: Women, Training, and Livelihoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shopping for TrainingIn 1996 the government of Canada decided that people should shop for their labour market training.As part of a general shift in policy towards privatization and "market-driven" solutions, changes to the federal Employment Insurance (EI) Act as legislated in 1996 shifted funding away from sponsored training programs and towards individual subsidies.1 The result has been that, today, women's choices for training and employment services are, at the same time, more limited and greater than ever before.For the woman on social assistance, there are typically a very restricted number of programs offering minimal training opportunities.On the other hand, for the declining number of people who qualify for EI-related training, changes in federal policy have created a wide range of potential choice.As every wise shopper knows, making a good purchase depends on availability, quality, and price.What range of choices is there?Do the available choices offer something suitable in the way of size, Wt, and style?What about quality?Is the quality high enough to make for a durable, usable, and attractive purchase?And price?Is it affordable and good value?In situations where any of availability, quality, or price is a problem, the shopper is faced with a difWcult dilemma: accept an unsuitable, inferior, and/or overly expensive product or go home empty-handed.Information on the impacts of the new policy has only recently become available.As of Spring 2001 Labour Market Development Agreements (LMDAs), Wnalizing devolution to the provinces, had been signed in all provinces but Ontario.Most agreements, however, are still in the early stages of implementation.Ontario's agreement negotiation process as of fall 2000 was "on hold" and may stay on hold indeWnitely.Training-related changes to the EI Act have been effectively implemented since 1997, with the Wrst statistical information on impacts becoming available in late 1999.As a result of social welfare reform at the federal level in 1996 through the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), changes to training available to
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".