Mapping the civic education policy community in Canada: A study of policy actors’ attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although civic education in Canada is typically seen as the responsibility of the provincial public school system and despite the fact that youth disengagement is widely accepted as a problem, civic education is a policy area that does not receive sustained attention from either the public or government. However, attention to the problem of political apathy and ignorance in Canada continues to grow and the number of policy actors in both governmental and non-governmental settings is increasing. The growing civic education policy network and community is occurring in a vacuum of policy ambiguity and ambivalence. In an attempt to better understand the civic education policy network in Canada we surveyed both federal and provincial government and non-governmental actors. In our survey, we asked policy actors to rank other policy actors in terms of collaboration, trust, influence and reliance in the policy network. In addition to this we asked the actors about their attitudes on the policy outcomes of civic education policy in relation to political behaviour and political knowledge. Our findings suggest that the policy network is highly centralized with federal government actors and a handful of national non-government actors. Also, we found that civic education policy actors in Canada generally agree on both political knowledge and political behaviour policy outcomes.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".