MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189521125

Does Character Education Really Support Citizenship Education? Examining the Claims of an Ontario Policy

2007· article· en· W2189521125 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sue Winton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipSituational ethicsSociologyPublic relationsActive citizenshipInterpersonal communicationEducation policySocial policyStatus quoCharacter educationPluralism (philosophy)PedagogyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyHigher educationSocial scienceCharacter (mathematics)Law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The claim that the character education policy of a school board in Ontario, Canada supports citizenship education is examined. 181 documents were analyzed to determine the ways the policy supports and/or undermines citizenship education’s goal to prepare students to become “knowledgeable individuals committed to active participation in a pluralist society ” (Sears, Clarke, and Hughes, 2000, p. 153). The findings show that the policy encourages students to acquire specific values, behaviours, and interpersonal skills rather than conceptual or situational knowledge. While the policy encourages active citizenship by promoting the development of decision-making, conflict resolution, and communication skills, it emphasizes participation in activities that support rather than challenge the status quo. The policy also offers some support for developing students ’ commitment to pluralism, but its narrow definition of diversity and emphasis on shared values, behaviour, and language contradict these efforts. I conclude that the policy supports citizenship education that adopts an assimilationist conception of social cohesion and/or social initiation as its purpose(s).

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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207