MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411936655 · doi:10.21432/cjlt29000

Perspectives on Implementing Micro-credentials in the Commonwealth Caribbean: A Survey of Stakeholders

2025· article· en· W4411936655 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rory McGreal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCaribbean history, culture, and politics
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthHigher educationBusinessEngineering ethicsProcess managementKnowledge managementPedagogyPolitical scienceSociologyComputer scienceEconomic growthEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Micro-credentials (MCs) have emerged as a transformative tool in education and workforce development, offering flexible, targeted learning opportunities that align with the principles of lifelong learning. This paper presents the findings of a survey conducted among stakeholders in the Commonwealth Caribbean in a baseline study to gauge their awareness, experiences, and attitudes toward MCs. The study reveals that while a majority of respondents are familiar with MCs, significant barriers such as lack of awareness, resistance to change, and limited access to technology hinder their widespread adoption. The paper highlights the potential of MCs to address regional flexible learning and skills gaps, support workforce development, and promote social inclusion, while also emphasizing the need for clear policies, quality assurance frameworks, and stakeholder collaboration. By applying the Lifelong Learning Paradigm, the paper provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the role of MCs in supporting continuous learning, skill development and adaptability. The findings underscore the importance of aligning MCs with industry needs, leveraging technology, and fostering a supportive ecosystem to ensure their successful implementation in the Caribbean. The paper concludes with actionable recommendations for policymakers, educators, and employers to integrate MCs into the region’s lifelong learning landscape.

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)0.002
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 score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicCaribbean history, culture, and politicsFrench-language works237,207