MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417454005 · doi:10.3991/ijac.v18i4.58579

From Blueprinting to Action Mapping

2025· article· W4417454005 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andy Benoit

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintWorkforceWorkforce developmentProcess (computing)Action learningAction (physics)CurriculumKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This descriptive case study describes a collaboration between the Center for Continuing Education at Saskatchewan Polytechnic in Canada and an organization administering services to support Saskatchewan’s health system. Its purpose was to provide foundational knowledge and skills in the workplace by creating accessible, engaging, and purpose-driven micro-credentials for adjudicators and others working in insurance companies across Canada. In the client’s context, adjudicators are frontline staff responsible for administering group life, extended health care, dental, and disability income plans. The successful completion of the micro-credentials was driven by sustained client engagement during weekly virtual meetings and a shift from traditional course blueprinting to Action Mapping. This approach was enhanced by using Figma to visually represent the relationships among key design elements. This case study is particularly relevant for post-secondary institutions (PSIs) aiming to collaborate with industry partners on designing and developing learning solutions that address real-world workforce needs. It highlights a common challenge PSIs face when applying traditional design methods in industry contexts, outlines the criteria used to select a more suitable design approach, and provides illustrative examples. Ultimately, the study offers practical strategies to enhance collaboration with workplace learning clients by streamlining the design process and ensuring alignment with industry expectations.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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 venueInternational Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC)Same topicOrganizational Learning and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207