Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuing education offers one of the most convenient and accessible ways to bring people from diverse backgrounds together for the purpose of learning. Ironically, courses that directly address cross-cultural exchange are not easily found among program offerings. Recent world and local events have made it increasingly important for Canadians to understand cultural difference. Immigration has been steadily rising due, in part, to the global perception of Canada as a model, pluralistic country. As such, Canadians may enjoy the respect of other nations, but they also have a responsibility to ensure that people from different cultures can, in fact, live together and thrive. What many believe is required now, and what Canada (as a pioneer of modern multiculturalism) is well poised for, is an increase in meaningful cross-cultural dialogue that goes beyond superficially acknowledging cultural difference to encouraging a deeper understanding of different cultural values and traditions. This kind of engagement can occur through various discussions and activities at all levels of education. However, one of the most effective ways to facilitate meaningful cross-cultural exchange is by offering liberal arts and other programs that focus on culture through continuing education. The liberal arts (subjects such as history, philosophy, literature and language) offer numerous opportunities for students to explore people and societies and reflect upon their own beliefs and values. It is, in many ways, natural for such courses to be delivered through continuing education, where, arguably, the widest range of people from the general public choose to meet and engage in dialogue. While other educational providers either offer compulsory training or cater to specific, demographic groups, continuing education provides relatively low-cost, optional and accessible learning programs that are open to virtually any member of the community. Where liberal arts and other culturally-focused programs are included among course offerings, the potential for continuing education to promote cross-cultural learning is great. WHY SHOULD CROSS-CULTURAL LEARNING BE ENCOURAGED IN CONTINUING EDUCATION? Current realities in adult continuing education reflect a focus on job-ready skills development. According to the 1998 Adult Education and Training Survey, published by Statistics Canada, 28% of Canadians participated in adult education and training programs in 1997. Of these, three of every four did so for job-related purposes. The highest demand for courses was in applied fields such as business, education, health, engineering and computer science. This data suggests that the “applied” fields listed above are considered to be “jobrelated”, while other fields such as the liberal arts and cultural studies are not generally considered to be applicable to the workplace. There is much literature, however, suggesting the opposite: that in fact, the liberal arts (which facilitate engagement with questions about culture) are very relevant to our professional lives. For instance, in a 1986 working paper, Dr. William O’Brian, American educator and president of an educational Cross-Cultural Learning in Adult Continuing Education
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.020 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".