Writing ourselves into being: A review of the Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education/La Revue Canadianne pour l'Étude de l'Éducation des adultes
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
Examines and analyzes the 22-volume publication history of The Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education/la Revue canadianne pour l’étude de l’éducation des adultes (CJSAE/RCÉÉA). Three different approaches are applied: quantitative history of publication trends, e-mail interviews with five former editors, and analysis of Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE) documents relating to the journal. The author concludes that the journal has been shaped by different layers of expectations and influence, including three tensions of the United States vs. Canada, francophone vs. anglophone Canada, and east vs. west. Overall, the journal has contributed significantly to the formation of the academic field of adult education in Canada. Résumé Cet article examine et analyse l'historique en 22 volumes de la CJSAE/RCÉÉA. Trois approches différentes sont employées à cet effet: l’analyse quantitative des tendances historiques de publication, l’analyse qualitative d’entretiens effectués par email avec 5 anciens éditeurs, et l’étude de documents auxiliaires qui traitent de la revue, publiés par la CASAE/ACEEA. L’auteur conclut que la revue a été façonnée par des influences et attentes à des niveaux différents, comprenant, entre autres, trois tensions clés: la tension canado- américaine, la tension est-ouest et la tension anglophone- francophone. Dans l’ensemble, la revue a largement contribué à l’établissement du domaine de recherche sur l’éducation des adultes au Canada
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it