MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409191660 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n2p263

Strategies for Promoting of lifelong learning in Adult Higher Education in ZheJing Province

2025· article· en· W4409191660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xu Zhongyan, Sunate Thaveethavornsawat, Touchakorn Suwancharas, Areeya Juijumlong

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLifelong learningHigher educationMathematics educationPedagogyPsychologyAdult educationMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this research were 1) to explore the current situation of sustainable development for lifelong learning of adult higher education in Zhejiang Province and 2) to propose strategies for the sustainable development of lifelong learning of adult higher education in Zhejiang Province and 3) evaluating the effectiveness of the strategy for sustainable development of lifelong learning of adult higher education in Zhejiang Province. The sample group of this study consisted of 384 students and 10 interview experts.10 focus group discussion experts and 5 strategy assessment experts. The research tools included 1) questionnaires; 2) interviews;and 3) strategies; and 4) assessment forms. Statistical methods used to analyze the data included percentage, mean, standard deviation, modified Priority Needs Index (PNImodified) and content analysis. The reasearch instruments included 1) questionnaires; 2) interviews; and 3) strategies, and 4) evaluation form. The statistics to analyze the data were percentages. mean, stand deviations, Modified Prionrity Needs Index; (PNImodified) and content analysis strategies for promoting lifelong learning in adult education in Zhejiang Province, including 4 strategies, build institutional measures, including 6 strategies, improve the mangement system, including 8 strategies, enhance learning motivation, including 7 strategies, and evaluate education quality, inculding 5 strategies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.400 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207