MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009236390 · doi:10.1080/02722011.2010.519398

Commissioned Citizenship: The Evolution of Pedagogical Citizen Construction in Canada, 1947–1994

2010· article· en· W2009236390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.P. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Review of Canadian Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipIdeal (ethics)State (computer science)Public administrationMeaning (existential)SociologyWork (physics)Political scienceGood citizenshipActive citizenshipPublic relationsLawEpistemologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most influential tools that the state wields in developing citizenship is public education. The 19 royal commissions and major reports on education completed in provinces across Canada between 1947 and 1994 offer valuable insight into what the Canadian state conceives as ideal citizenship. The following work attempts to answer two research questions: (1) When do provincial governments desire to change the direction of education (and construction of citizens)?; and (2) How do provincial governments define the ideal citizen once reform is initiated? This essay finds that through three eras of reform, the pedagogical focus on citizenship moved from the individual to the community to a diluted form with no unifying vision. The sum of these attempts at change and conceptions of ideal citizenry leads one further from an accepted meaning of the continually elusive notion of Canadian citizenship.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0290.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Review of Canadian StudiesSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207