Benchmarks of Historical Thinking: First Steps
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although historical thinking has been the subject of a substantial body of recent research, few attempts explicitly apply the results on a large scale in North America. This article, a narrative inquiry, examines the first stages of a multi-year, Canada- wide project to reform history education through the development of classroom- based assessments. The study is based on participant-observations, documents gen- erated by the project, and interviews, questionnaires, and correspondence with parti- cipants. The authors find impediments – apparently surmountable – in teachers’ ap- plication of potentially difficult concepts, and in their organizational resistance. Key words: assessment, historical thinking, history education, narrative inquiry Bien que la pensee historique ait ete recemment le sujet de nombreuses recherches, peu d’entre elles tentent explicitement d’en appliquer les resultats sur une large echelle en Amerique du Nord. Dans cet article, l’auteur decrit les premieres etapes d’un projet canadien de plusieurs annees visant a reformer les cours d’histoire en recourant a des evaluations basees sur les classes. L’etude s’appuie sur l’observation des participants, des documents generes par le projet ainsi que des entrevues, des questionnaires et de la correspondance avec les participants. Les auteurs identifient des obstacles – apparemment surmontables – a la mise en application par les enseignants de concepts potentiellement difficiles et notent leur resistance organisa- tionnelle. Mots cles : evaluation, pensee historique, cours d’histoire, recherche descriptive
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it