Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical liberal democratic theorists stressed that, although formal democracy with a universal franchise was all but inevitable, the success of the democratic experiment depended upon the growth of an educated andinformed electorate. An essential element in the development of civic competence among voters is accessibility to public educational institutions. This article examines three innovative contributions made by Canadian colleges to practices of equity that bring gendered, racialized power relations into view. Based on recent visits to fifty campuses, we argue first that public colleges have a good record in opening access for those students previously excluded from postsecondary education and in tackling the challenging problem of literacy education which is basic for democratic participation; however, they face enduringdifficulties in providing liberal arts education for their students and in recruiting faculty from underserved groups. While college literacy teachers are devoted and skilled educators, they do not feel supported by their administrations in the difficult task of engaging and educating socially oppressed students. Finally, although enrolment statistics suggest that the liberal arts and civic education are alive and well in Canada, we raise a suspicion that education for the practice of democracy through exposure to the liberal arts—including critical analysis inhistoryand the social sciences—falls far short of itspotential.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".