MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317701498 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n4p225

Expanding Knowledge Gaps: The Function of Fictions in Teaching Materials after the 2011 Swedish High School Reform

2016· article· en· W2317701498 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Caroline Graeske

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Theory and Curriculum Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumVocational educationMathematics educationPedagogyClass (philosophy)SociologyQualitative researchWork (physics)Function (biology)Empirical researchPsychologySocial scienceEpistemologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim in the study is to analyze how work with fiction is organized in six textbooks for senior high school in Sweden after the school reform 2011. Research into Swedish teaching materials has been neglected in recent years and there is a knowledge gap about how the work with fictions is affected by the reform in 2011. In the study quantitative and qualitative methods are used and Bernstein’s theories relating to horizontal and vertical discourse are applied to the empirical material. The analysis shows that work with fiction in textbooks is marginalized, particularly work with fictions created by women. The study also shows that students attending vocational programs have access to a different knowledge than students attending university preparatory programs. This is remarkable, since the learning objectives in Svenska 1, curriculum for vocational and university preparatory programs, are the same. This means that central values of equal education are eliminated after the reform, and the knowledge gap between different groups of students likely is to increase.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducational Theory and Curriculum StudiesFrench-language works237,207