Ecological Consciousness in Ontario Elementary Schools: The Truant Curriculum and the Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global ecological degradation is currently causing widespread suffering and this is expected to worsen unless we change our global behaviors. Wilson (2002) Wilson, E. O. 2002. The future of life, New York, NY: Knopf. [Google Scholar] has suggested that the consequences of ecological degradation are a threat to all life on earth. Woodbridge (2004) Woodbridge, R. 2004. The next world war: Tribes, cities, nations and ecological decline, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar] asserts that human pressures on natural systems will reach pivotal status by 2025. There have been many international research studies that have comprehensively examined a wide variety of natural systems, and the results continually point to a serious threat to our long term survival. However, we don't have to look to the future to know we have serious problems now. Globally, every 8 seconds, a child dies from drinking contaminated water (deVilliers, 2000 deVilliers, M. 2000. Water, Toronto: Stoddart. [Google Scholar], p. 19). Principally, we in North America feel somewhat distanced from a statistic such as this and take comfort that these serious ecological problems are happening somewhere else. Yet, even in Southern Ontario, people have died from drinking contaminated water, from air pollution and from living on or near contaminated soil. We are slowly waking up to the fact that complex ecological systems have no boundaries and that we are all vulnerable. Given the serious nature of ecological decline, there is some concern that we have not done a very good job in creating an ecologically literate society nor have we been able to significantly develop common ecological behaviors.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".