Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study attempts to determine what use the term "integration" has in educational discourse, specifically as it appears in the popular phrase in Christian higher education, "the integration of faith and learning." Chapter I records that many educators see widespread disintegration in contemporary education. This perceived disintegration has led to many calls and proposals for educational integration. While educators perceive this increased need for integration, what "integration" means is less and less clear. By surveying actual usage in educational writing, this thesis distinguishes four general senses of "integration": fusion, incorporation, correlation, and dialogical (in Appendix A and Chapter III). It then explores further typical elements of meaning in educational uses of "integration" (Chapter IV). Chapters III and IV reveal and discuss a number of points of contention between educators as to the "meaning of integration." Chapter V identifies five main sources of the confusion that often accompanies uses of "integration." It is a positive term and frequently is employed primarily for its value as a slogan. Different educators give "integration" at least three different psychological meanings. The same word is used to denote both processes and end states. It is a polymorphous term whose meaning is not clear until what is being integrated is specified. It is a terra that invites conception-building, though conceptions are rarely announced as such; usually educators' visions of what ought to be come cloaked as definitions of terms. "The integration of faith and learning" suffers from every weakness that "integration" itself encounters. Its popularity in certain sectors of church education is understandable when considered in its historical context: some branches of the church that once largely abandoned higher education are now trying to express a new interest in it. "Integration" is a choice word to serve as a slogan that expresses a certain conception of Christian education. Beyond its function as a slogan, and despite the other problems that frequently accompany its use, "integration" does have use in education, partly because integration is an important concept in education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".