Environmental Education and Science Education: Ideology, Hegemony, Traditional Knowledge, and Alignment
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
Environmental degradation and decreasing quality of life have galvanized a generation and launched a resurgence of attention to environmental matters, raising questions about environmental education policies and practices, and their relationship to science and social responsibility. Accordingly, many programs, policies, and frameworks have emerged worldwide in an effort to understand, develop and implement environmental education. However, amidst shared concern for the environment and the recognition of the central role of education in enhancing human-environment relationships, there exist widely differing discourses and practices under the banner of environmental education (SAUVÉ, 2005). In this paper I examine environmental education in relation to: 1) the range of ideological orientations, 2) the hegemony of school-based disciplines, 3) traditional ecological knowledge and wisdom (TEKW), and 4) alignment with science education. This paper stems from my interest in understanding the location (both theoretically and pragmatically) of environmental education discourses in contemporary schooling.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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