Rhetorical Strategies of the Postsecondary Community Service-Learning Movement in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the rhetorical strategies of the community service-learning movement in Canada, offering a description of the movement that is accessible to both Canadian and international readers who are familiar with service-learning. The article first provides a general comparison of the context, features and progress of the Canadian community service-learning (CSL) movement in light of the American service-learning movement. It then it analyzes the unique messages and features of the Canadian movement using social movement theory and rhetorical theory as a frame. It concludes with recommendations regarding the rhetorical strategies and organizational structures that are likely to be ethical and effective in forwarding the CSL initiative in Canada and adapting it to the unique cultural, social and political contexts of its higher education system. These insights are offered from the perspective of a Canadian faculty member from the discipline of rhetorical studies who teaches, researches, and leads in the movement both nationally and locally. KEYWORDS service-learning; social movements; higher education; institutionalization; community partnerships
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".