MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139810015 · doi:10.18497/iejee-green.39040

Creative Approaches to Environmental Learning: Two Perspectives on Teaching Environmental Art Education.

2012· article· en· W2139810015 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDergiPark (Istanbul University) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental educationVisual arts educationPopularityThe artsCurriculumEnvironmental artSustainabilityEnvironmental adult educationEngineering ethicsField (mathematics)Higher educationPedagogyArts in educationSociologyPolitical scienceVisual artsEngineeringContemporary artArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental art education is growing in popularity in college and university programs as the arts begin to play a more prominent role in environmental and sustainability education.  As this emerging field of study is an interdisciplinary endeavor that draws from the more established fields of visual art education and environmental education, environmental art education offers a means to increase the pool of potential learners to those in the arts and sciences, as well as diversify learning to ensure that it is memorable and authentic.  This article describes two different approaches to the design of courses in this emerging field from the perspectives of both science and art educators, in hopes of providing direction on the development of curricula and pedagogy in environmental art education to other educators. Keywords: Environmental education, environmental art education, eco-art education, visual arts, course design

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.166 · 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