Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses methodological criteria for environmental education. The place of environmental education in the curriculum has led to its being considered as a dimension that should cut across different disciplines, instead of offering a corpus of contents by itself. Nevertheless, experience has shown that ecology has systematically filled up the contents of environmental education. In the following pages I try to explain: (a) the reasons why ecology has gained hegemony, as well as the limitations that this approach represents; (b) the place and evolution of the concept of Sustainable Development in relation to the ecological approach; and (c) the methodological importance of the distinction between technical and social relations as a way to improve on the ecological approach. Resume Cet article vise a discuter de criteres methodologiques pour une education ecologique. Le debat sur la place de l’education ecologique dans les programmes d’etudes a mene a ce que ce soit considere comme une dimension qui devrait etre recoupee dans differentes disciplines, au lieu d’offrir un corpus de contenu en soi. Pourtant, l’experience fait apparaitre que l’ecologie a systematiquement rempli les supposes contenus de l’education ecologique. Dans les pages suivantes, je tente d’expliquer : a) les raisons pourquoi on confere l’hegemonie a l’ecologie dans les discussions sur l’environnement, aussi bien que les restrictions que cette approche represente; b) la place et l’evolution du concept du developpement durable en relation avec l’approche ecologique; et c) l’importance methodologique de la distinction entre les relations techniques et les relations sociales comme une facon d’ameliorer l’approche ecologique.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".