Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of the thesis is to assess the degree to which grades one to twelve students across the country are given the opportunity to study Canada in their social studies courses. Concerns about the sufficiency of Canadian content taught in the schools may be traced back to 1968 when the National History Project released A.B. Hodgetts' study What Culture? What Heritage? The study, among other things, outlined the deplorable conditions of civic education in this country and that there was little in the form of Canadian studies offered in the schools. Since Hodgetts' study there has been an unprecedented interest in Canadian studies throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and even in the 1990s. For the most part, research has reinforced Hodgetts' findings. -- The thesis does a province-by-province assessment of the current state of Canadian studies across the country. The assessment is divided into three sections- elementary (grades one to six), intermediate (grades seven to nine), and senior high (grades ten to twelve). The provinces and territories are compared and evaluated within each section according to the content focus and quality of their Canadian material. The thesis argues that there are sufficient Canadian studies courses available to students across the country. -- The study's province-by-province assessment of the current state of Canadian studies has reached a number of conclusions. First, contrary to the picture painted by national reports, there is a sufficient amount of Canadian studies in elementary and secondary schools across the country. Second, individual provinces differ in the quantity of national content found in their social studies programs. Third, graduation \nrequirements may hinder students' ability to take Canadian studies courses. Fourth, the large the number of Canadian studies courses offered to students the more in-depth the national content focus. Fifth, the majority of provinces emphasize a strong national identity in their social studies curricula. Sixth, national history is offered to all students across the country.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".