MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307512113 · doi:10.1515/jtes-2015-0002

Digital Citizenship in the Afterschool Space: Implications for Education for Sustainable Development

2015· article· en· W2307512113 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Howard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teacher Education for Sustainability · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsTransformative learningHappeningSpace (punctuation)CurriculumCitizenshipSociologySustainable developmentEducation for sustainable developmentEngineering ethicsPedagogyPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Education for sustainable development (ESD) challenges traditional curricula and formal schooling in important ways. ESD requires systemic thinking, interdisciplinarity and is strengthened through the contributions of all disciplines. As with any transformative societal and technological shift, new questions arise when educators are required to venture into unchartered waters. Research has led to some interesting findings concerning digital literacies in the K-12 classroom. One finding is that a great deal of digital media learning is happening outside the traditional classroom space and is taking place in the afterschool space (Prensky, 2010). Understanding the nature of learning in the afterschool space and bridging the current divide between formal schooling and the learning happening online is critical to the establishment of core ESD values and skills, namely ethical online communities and the development of respectful, tolerant global digital citizens.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0170.014
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teacher Education for SustainabilitySame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207