The Unsung Heroes of Training and Development in Canada, The Administrators: A Content Analysis of Job Announcements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research that explores competencies needed by Training Administrators is limited; yet the role of Training Administrator is common. The purpose of this study was to define the role of Training Administrator from the industry’s perspective of Training (Learning) and Development with respect to its main roles and responsibilities, soft skills, education, and technical requirements needed to perform the job successfully, and what the typical title of the job is. To determine definitions, 63 job announcements from across Canada were collected from one online job database (LinkedIn.com) over a five-month period in 2021. Following a systematic process of collection, coding, and the measurement of frequency, by which a role and responsibility category, as well as a stated superior-level soft skill, was found within each job announcement, five main role and responsibilities and eight superior-level soft skills emerged. Moreover, the required minimum education, experience, and technical skills were identified from an employer’s perspective. The results suggested that those in the role of Training Administrator were mainly expected to perform the roles and responsibilities of: \n1.\tLearning Management System (“LMS”) Administrator. \n2.\tLogistical Support. \n3.\tData Analytics. \n4.\tDesign and Development, of curricula. \n5.\tLearning Communication Specialist. \nThe eight soft skills expected at a superior-level skillset were found to be in: \n1.\tOral and written. \n2.\tInterpersonal. \n3.\tMulti-tasking. \n4.\tDetail-oriented. \n5.\tTime management. \n6.\tAdaptability. \n7.\tStakeholder management. \n8.\tSelf-motivation. \nA typical job title for the role as determined by the current study was Learning Coordinator, rather than Training Administrator.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".