MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991055351 · doi:10.1080/15330150701319529

Teaming Children and Elders to Grow Food and Environmental Consciousness

2007· article· en· W1991055351 on OpenAlexaff
Jolie Mayer‐Smith, Oksana Bartosh, Linda Peterat

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Environmental Education & Communication · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture, Design, and Social History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental educationTheme (computing)CurriculumSociologyConsciousness raisingPublic relationsPedagogyEnvironmental ethicsPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fueled by concerns of a pending global crisis, environmental educators ask the question: How can we promote a responsible attitude and caring view of the planet among young people? Although nurturing an emotional connection with nature is a prominent theme and goal for environmentalists (Berry, 1987 Berry, W. 1987. Home economics, San Francisco: North Point Press. [Google Scholar]), little is known about how to translate environmental philosophies into education practice. To address this challenge we designed the Intergenerational Landed Learning Project, which brings together community elders, elementary students, and their teachers on an urban farm to explore how farming practices can be integrated with school curriculum to foster environmental knowing and care. In this article we provide empirical evidence that an intergenerational learning experience that involves working with the land can be powerful in promoting environmental concern and discuss the challenges we encountered in carrying out this initiative.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Environmental Education & CommunicationSame topicArchitecture, Design, and Social HistoryFrench-language works237,207