MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162078583 · doi:10.82308/39597

Prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) and the impact of globalization : a Canadian case study

2007· dissertation· en· W7162078583 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leah. Moss

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)TimelineNarrativeParticipant observationProcess (computing)Experiential learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a case study of participant narratives in the prior learning assessment and recognition (PLAR) process at The Royal Military College (RMC) in Kingston, Ontario. RMC is under the direction of the Department of National Defence Canada, and has a full-time staff dedicated to the maintenance and expansion of the prior learning assessment and recognition process. The research problem of this thesis is to ask if a participant in a prior learning assessment and recognition program acknowledges their own knowledge as valuable and how this may be linked to the motivating factors that cause the participant to return to formal study. In order to provide a context for the research problem, I use the literature review to examine the history of prior learning assessment and recognition programs in Canada. Through a mail survey, the use of participant narratives provides a voice to the literature in discussing the question of how knowledge is valued in a prior learning assessment program. Although the focus of the thesis will be prior learning assessment and recognition in Canada, the background to the concept of prior learning assessment is found in the United States. It is therefore essential to begin there in order to provide a context in which to understand the current Canadian situation. As a timeline the study begins with the post-World War II era and continues to the present. The sub-theme of my doctoral research is to investigate how the concept of prior learning assessment and recognition in Canada has been influenced by the broader context of globalization.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.448 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207