Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines community economic development (CED) and its educational elements. CED is a process of community residents' learning and developing appropriate responses to their collective and individual socio-economic needs. In this process, learning and development are interactive and evolve into further stages. While a guiding CED organization, resources and collaboration with public and private sectors are necessary elements of CED, the heart of CED is the direct participation, ownership and management of the CED organization and businesses by local residents. The educational significance of CED is that it can motivate people, especially low income people who are often alienated from education, to participate in CED and its education programs. What motivates poor people are: their need to satisfy their basic wants, the encouragement from fellow members of CED groups, and the empowerment that arises from a more egalitarian structuring of ownership and management of economic enterprises. Both the accomplishment of these ends and the learning experienced in the process provide satisfaction. This is likely to encourage further learning. Four CED case studies — the American, Canadian, Tanzanian and Sri Lankan — are compared according to two models of CED stage development. Analysis of these case studies indicates that community exploitation, "crises," visionary ideas and popular education spawn CED movements. To develop organizations and implement businesses, these movements then need to develop a managerial and professional expertise. While none of the four CED situations has been able to integrate effectively this expertise with their CED movements, Sri Lanka has been the most successful in this regard, and Tanzania the least. The problem has been that professionals, such as managers, educators and bureaucrats, have tended to impose their view of CED and their own interests rather than work with and support the people's views and interests. Canadian and American CED organizations, in their desire for social and governmental support, have professionalized at the expense of their movements. Thus, the people most in need of socio-economic interventions are often not the recipients. This study therefore recommends that CED movements be nurtured, while being effectively combined with a professional approach that serves the movement. This can be done through popular education (on CED philosophy and practice) and ongoing dialogue by all sectors of society; and by creating and strengthening member groups concerned with a more egalitarian structuring of their organizations and economic enterprises. This would require education practitioners and theoreticians to play a key role in helping to implement CED. Finally, research would need to be undertaken to evaluate whether CED and its education programs do motivate community residents to participate in their own educational and socio-economic development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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 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".