“Why are we learning this?”: Does Studying the Holocaust Encourage Better Citizenship Values?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between learning about the Holocaust and the development of positive values may seem common sense, but in reality there is a complex level of development and understanding. The research reported here, which was sponsored by the Scottish government, was designed to ascertain whether learning about the Holocaust has an impact on young people's general citizenship values and attitudes; does learning about the Holocaust allow them to extrapolate from the events of the Holocaust to present-day issues, such as racism and discrimination? The study followed a cohort of approximately 100 pupils (aged 11–12) who had studied the Holocaust and compared their values one year later both to their earlier attitudes and to those of their peers who had not studied the Holocaust. As we might expect, the results were not always as predicted, particularly when it came to the pupils’ understanding of anti-Semitism or genocide; in general, however, the study's core group maintained more positive values than they had before their lessons on the Holocaust and showed more positive values than their peers who had not studied the Holocaust.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".