MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013938656 · doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.767321

When does a nation-level analysis make sense? ESD and educational governance in Brazil, South Africa, and the USA

2013· article· en· W2013938656 on OpenAlex
Noah Weeth Feinstein, Pedro Roberto Jacobi, Heila Lotz‐Sisitka

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Education Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)BeijingCorporate governanceEducation for sustainable developmentPolitical scienceInternational educationSociologyPublic administrationHigher educationSustainable developmentEconomic growthManagementChinaEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract International policy analysis tends to simplify the nation state, portraying countries as coherent units that can be described by one statistic or placed into one category. As scholars from Brazil, South Africa, and the USA, we find the nation-centric research perspective particularly challenging. In each of our home countries, the effective influence of the national government on education is quite limited, particularly in fringe and emerging areas of education such as Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Climate Change Education (CCE). This essay explores how nation-level comparisons are and are not useful for international research on ESD and CCE. We consider several layers of decentralized governance, but ultimately come to the conclusion that ESD governance in our respective countries is polycentric rather than decentralized. We discuss the implications of this idea for cross-national policy research on ESD and CCE. Keywords: education for sustainable developmentclimate changeinternational comparisonspolycentricgovernancepolicy Notes 1. Results of the report and accompanying recommendations (Læssøe, Schnack, Breiting, and Rolls 2009; IALEI Citation2009) are publicly accessible online at http://www.intlalliance.org/home/ 2. The IALEI is an international collaboration among ten universities in the field of teacher education and educational research that aims to generate ideas, identify trends, and serve as a collective voice on important educational issues. It includes representatives from the Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Australia; the Faculty of Education, University of São Paulo, Brazil; the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada; the School of Education, Beijing Normal University, People's Republic of China; the Danish School of Education, University of Aarhus, Denmark; the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; the School of Education, University of Cape Town, South Africa; College of Education, Seoul National University, South Korea; the Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom; and the School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. 3. In keeping with the editorial style of this journal, we have omitted most references to relevant laws and statutes from the three case study nations (these references are available from the authors on request). We have, however, included references to government reports where applicable. 4. In international development and international education literature, it is common to use the words 'North' and 'South' (or the phrases 'Global North' and 'Global South') rather than the phrases 'developed/industrialized nations' and 'developing nations,' which are overtly normative. There is some controversy over such terminology, but it is beyond the scope of this paper.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.287 · 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