MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334946852 · doi:10.1093/ahr/118.3.939

DAVID CANNADINE, JENNY KEATING, and NICOLA SHELDON. The Right Kind of History: Teaching the Past in Twentieth-Century England.

2013· article· en· W2334946852 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Heathorn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryArt historyClassics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This well-researched book aims to explore the quantity and quality of instruction in history in English primary and secondary schooling over the past century, and to determine—where possible—the impact of that instruction. Its analytical method is to proceed from the level of government officials and their guidelines along with academic ideas about pedagogy, down through local educational authorities and their school policy, to actual teaching practice in the classroom. The authors' sources range widely from policy statements to instructional materials to oral interviews. Their conclusions are sobering. For most of the twentieth century, central government largely left the subjects of instruction in English state schools in the hands of local authorities and teachers; the oversight of education has in fact been a low status post within the national government, with few noteworthy ministers interested in reforms or in increasing or defending budgets. And while instructional methods evolved to reflect changes in the views of professional and academic educationalists, they did so only slowly and unevenly, and often without making any measurable difference.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.008

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207