MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153166819 · doi:10.5296/ije.v4i4.2292

Finding the Purpose in Education: Assessing the Goals and Ideals of Education from the Perspective of Canadian Elementary Students

2012· article· en· W2153166819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen M. Hamm, Edward Griffith

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumPerspective (graphical)PerceptionPedagogyFocus groupPsychologyClass (philosophy)CitizenshipMathematics educationNeighbourhood (mathematics)SociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this action research project was to discern elementary students’ views regarding the goal or purpose of their education. Participants included 24 students in a grade four/five split classroom from a middle class neighbourhood in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Students were asked to voluntarily complete a researcher made survey regarding their perception on education. The survey required the students to reflect on four major areas; school for the purpose of citizenship, school for the purpose of building a better personal future, attitudes toward curriculum, and student attitudes about their own academic performance. The results of this study indicated that students strongly believed that school plays a large role in preparing them for the future and in building citizenship. However, the students expressed a generally negative attitude toward personal academic performance academics and curriculum. Implications for educators are discussed in light of student responses.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of EducationSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207