MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339194278 · doi:10.26522/brocked.v24i2.404

Curricular Critique of an Environmental Education Policy Framework: Acting Today, Shaping Tomorrow

2015· article· en· W2339194278 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Douglas D. Karrow, Xavier Fazio

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock Education Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumTypologyArgument (complex analysis)Perspective (graphical)Environmental educationEnvironmental policyRelevance (law)PedagogyEducation policyEngineering ethicsSociologyJurisdictionPolitical scienceEngineeringHigher educationEnvironmental planningComputer scienceLawGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following paper is a curricular critique of an environmental education policy framework called Acting Today, Shaping Tomorrow (2009). It is founded upon: (a) an examination of the conventional argument for integrated curriculum models and its relevance to K-12 environmental education; and (b) utilization of a typology of integrated curriculum models to analyze an environmental education policy framework within the jurisdiction of Ontario, Canada. In conclusion, Ontario’s environmental education policy framework tends toward an integrated curriculum model referred to as ‘selective infusion.’ The implications for integrated curricular practice are identified, with recommendations for improving the policy framework from an integrated curricular perspective. Key Words: environmental education, integrated curriculum, curriculum critique, education policy.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0170.033
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock Education JournalSame topicEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207