MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018066610

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DACUM AND WORK PROCESS ANALYSIS FOR VOCATIONAL
\nSCHOOL CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT TO MEET WORKPLACE NEED

2014· article· en· W7018066610 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueePrints - UNY (Yogyakarta State University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVocational Education and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumVocational educationCurriculum developmentProcess (computing)Work (physics)Curriculum mapping
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curriculum development to meet workplace need of vocational education can be reached
\nthrough a number of procedures. A procedure for the development of the curriculum used by
\nvocational education experts from ITB Germany is work process analysis (WPA). The result of
\nWPA is the steps of the task. The education experts in the United States and Canada use DACUM
\n(Development a Curriculum). The result of DACUM is: duties and tasks of an occupation. This
\npaper will compare the two curriculum development procedures. The aspects to be compared
\nare: the steps, the results obtained, the time required, the number of personnel involved,
\nadvantages, and disadvantages.

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.

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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.294 · 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