MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407256124 · doi:10.1080/13636820.2025.2461585

Towards a sustainable apprenticeship framework: lessons from Canada

2025· article· en· W4407256124 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zagros Madjd‐Sadjadi, Philip J. Slater

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vocational Education and Training · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Education and Societal Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApprenticeshipBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An innovative workforce is a key driver of sustained economic growth in any country. Recent press regarding the spiralling costs of higher education, coupled with increased levels of student debt, has both called into question the viability of such traditional paths and created an imperative for alternative workforce tracks, especially for minorities. This study uses comparative government statistics along with an investigation into relative legal and institutional frameworks to investigate successful traits of Canadian apprenticeship programs. This was done with an eye to developing a practical and equitable framework to inform US governmental policy and funding initiatives relating to accessibility, visibility, promotion, and equity for US apprenticeships. Contrary to our initial hypothesis and prevailing academic literature, we find little evidence that Canada does a better job in addressing equity concerns and, in fact, the case may be the opposite. Confirming our initial hypothesis, though, we find that Canada has specific programs that can address the attractiveness of apprenticeship, improving labour mobility, and providing income replacement that the US may wish to consider. This study is both timely and warranted as society seeks sustainable conduits and mechanisms by which to address labour market shortages, notably in the trades.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vocational Education and TrainingSame topicYouth Education and Societal DynamicsFrench-language works237,207