Historical Stages and the Modern Models of Children and Adults Territorial Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article reveals the ongoing research, the object of which is intergenerational relations in children and adults territorial communities. Based on historical and pedagogical analysis of research of the problem and understanding of global challenges to the modern education, the authors provide scientific substantiation of the development process of intergenerational relations in children and adults communities. A conceptual model of knowledge about children and adults educational territorial communities is worked out; the most important historical stages in the development of children and adults territorial communities are highlighted; major theoretical, historical and pedagogical background of the theories regarding children and adults communities are identified; a comparative analysis of the diversity of models for children and adults territorial communities in Russia and abroad is implemented; the basic models of modern children and adults territorial communities are identified and theoretically proved, taking into account the different interpretations of the term of “territory”. The results significantly extend the research methodology for the problems of children and adults communities represented in the Russian and foreign studies. The results of the study are partially implemented and will continue to be implemented into the practice of formation and development of children and adults communities as educational institutions, and in certain regions, depending on the characteristics of the community models. The results can be used during lectures and seminars on the overall social and comparative pedagogy, social psychology at the universities, as well as in the training of school principals, coordinating councils of the territories, and organizers of curricular and extra-curricular work with children and adolescents.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".