MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409282683 · doi:10.3390/higheredu4020019

Higher Education Fields of Study and the Use of Transferable Skills at Work: An Analysis Using Data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) in Canada

2025· article· en· W4409282683 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christine E. B. Mishra, David Walters, Evan Fraser, Daniel Gillis, Shoshanah Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueTrends in Higher Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWork (physics)Transferable skills analysisHigher educationPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the rapidly changing job market in Canada and globally, there have been increasing calls to address the transferable skills gap between higher education graduates and the skills needed for the many new and changing jobs across the labour market. To investigate which fields of study in higher education in Canada produce graduates who go on to use more transferable skills on the job, we created an index of transferable skills use at work from several background questionnaire variables available in the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) in Canada survey. A series of four least squares linear regression models were used to examine the impacts of variables such as field of study and occupation type on this transferable skills index. Teacher training and education programs were found to have the highest scores on the transferable skills index, suggesting that these programs (and other professional programs) should be considered as a source of inspiration for how all programs can promote transferable skill development in their students. We also found a connection between transferable skill use and management roles within the workplace, suggesting that transferable skills are important factors in promotion to management roles.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrends in Higher EducationSame topicEducation Systems and PolicyFrench-language works237,207