A Critical Exploration of Contingent Workers' Training and Access to Information and Communication Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late 1990s, many Western governments introduced policy programs to make information and communication technology (ICT) accessible to all. More than a decade later, however, such universal access is far from a reality. Between 2002 and 2005, in response to a request from a group of contingent workers who felt excluded from effective access to ICT training, a university research group on contingency conducted an applied research project in the form of a series of basic ICT courses. This qualitative dissertation both critically examines the training process and treats it as a case study for exploring broader issues of exclusion and resistance in the context of access to ICT. Specifically, it explores: (1) the symptoms of exclusion as they relate to ICT, social capital, and the community; (2) possibilities for resistance that can alleviate the conditions of exclusion; (3) the assumptions, theories, knowledge construction, policy methods, and processes that underlie the symptoms of exclusion; and (4) alternative assumptions, strategies, and activities that offer possibilities for resistive action. The case study provided an environment in which exclusionary and resistive experiences with access to ICT and training were examined from the perspective of excluded contingent workers, as supported by a university research group. A key finding is that generational behaviour in the domestic sphere erects barriers that contribute to the silencing and exclusion of immigrant contingent women; these barriers then reinforce similar patterns of exclusion in institutionalized ICT training. Another major finding is the need for alleviating the barrier that limited English skills create for ICT learning; addressing this issue must be part of any recommendations for curricular change. Guided throughout by a critical approach that focuses on the concept of ruling relations, this dissertation marshals critical knowledge gained from below in support of change by policymakers, educators, and community practitioners.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".