The Values Debate at the Nexus of Transnational Perspectives on Human Rights and Citizenship Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serving as introduction to the collection of papers in this issue, this paper takes up seven themes to situate each paper in the debates that characterize the field of citizenship education and to attempt to understand the linkages between values, human rights and citizenship education in a transnational era. The themes explore planetary philosophical perspectives; understand values as practice and human rights as foundational to values; set geopolitical considerations of values in postcolonial perspectives and pedagogical perspectives in transnational contexts; characterize citizenship education as a contested field; and reflect upon the relevance of transnationalism to the values debate. In a concluding note, we remark that negotiating multiple, transcultural and transnational frames of reference is not unusual for many youth today nor is it in many countries; and as such, is the very nexus of education for democratic living in a transnational and transcultural times. Jouant le rôle d’introduction à la série d’articles publiés dans ce numéro de la revue, cet article met en relief sept thèmes qui permettent de situer chaque article dans les débats qui caractérisent le champ de l’éducation à la citoyenneté, pour ainsi tenter de faire comprendre les liens entre les valeurs, les droits de la personne et l’éducation à la citoyenneté dans notre monde transnational. Ces thèmes portent sur l’exploration des perspectives philosophiques planétaires; la compréhension des valeurs dans la pratique et les droits humains comme fondements aux valeurs de la citoyenneté; le fait de considérer les aspects géopolitiques des valeurs dans une perspective postcoloniale et ses répercussions pédagogiques dans des contextes transnationaux; les caractéristiques de l’éducation à la citoyenneté comme champ faisant l’objet de critiques; et la réflexion sur le sens du transnationalisme dans le débat sur les valeurs. En conclusion, nous remarquons que le fait de considérer des cadres de référence multiples, transculturels et transnationaux n’est pas inhabituel pour de nombreux jeunes ni pour de nombreux pays. Cela constitue en soi le coeur dynamique d’où peut jaillir l’éducation pour la vie démocratique à notre époque caractérisée par le transnational et le transculturel.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".