MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012106278 · doi:10.1017/s0814062600000112

Environmental Education as the Mountain – Exploring Chinese-<i>ness</i> of Environmental Education

2011· article· en· W2012106278 on OpenAlexafffund
Xia Ji

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Environmental Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of ChinaUniversity of ReginaWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsEnvironmental educationEnvironmental consciousnessChinaMainland ChinaEnvironmental adult educationConsciousnessWork (physics)Consciousness raisingSociologyPedagogySerendipityRelevance (law)PsychologyPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract What experiences have infuenced Chinese educators' environmental consciousness and their involvement in environmental education work? Using the autobiographical inquiry approach the author explored this question with fourteen master environmental educators from various regions of China and examined in depth their signifcant life experiences (SLE). Participants described several paths to become involved in environmental education work. Multiple factors impacted their environmental consciousness. Out of ten main categories of SLE three themes emerged: serendipity, , and a strong sense of responsibility toward the environment and toward environmental education work. This study illuminates the Chinese-ness of environmental education from the angle of life experiences and reflections of environmental educators in mainland China, which also has relevance to and implications for the wider international environmental education community.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Environmental EducationSame topicEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207