MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062246527

Skills System International Case Studies

2020· book· en· W7062246527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) · 2020
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsProductivityFlexibility (engineering)Vocational educationLegislationGermanSkills managementKey (lock)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents five country case studies - Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands and Sweden - to identify the key features and challenges of different international skills systems. Information is also provided on the German skills system (Annex 4) following a study visit. With the exception of Japan, each of the countries profiled has higher levels of productivity than the UK. The report has been designed to identify successful aspects of the different systems and provide policy learning relevant to the United Kingdom. The skills systems profiled differ from the UK in a number of key aspects. Firstly, they have experienced less flux in their skills system. Secondly, almost all have stronger employment legislation than the UK. Thirdly, many of the countries’ skills systems involve a greater role for social partners (employer representative and employee representative organisations) than exists in the UK. Key strengths of the skills systems profiled relate to flexibility of provision, the role of social partners and business engagement with training, and the value placed on Vocational Education and Training (VET) within society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207