Power, politics, democracy and reform: a historical review of curriculum reform, academia and government in British Columbia, Canada, 1920 to 2000
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the interrelations between power, politics, academia and curriculum reform in British Columbia (BC) using social studies curriculum documents as a case study. It describes how curriculum reform occurred and argues that reform was undemocratic as it was largely the product of individuals with power who invited individuals with educational ideologies that were attractive to them to aid them in the revisions. These educational ideologies came from the USA, illustrating the influence of US ideas overseas. The non-democratic nature of the curriculum reform process may partly explain why teachers often resisted the revisions, and why government officials attempted to appear more democratic by increasing teacher participation in the curriculum revision process later in the century. However, curriculum revision remained undemocratic. The paper comments on whether the curriculum revision process in a democracy ought to be democratic or not.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it