Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine how Canadian social studies curriculum guides portray global education, broadly defined as the study of foreign countries, cultures and landscapes; universal or international issues; and connections or comparisons of Canada/Canadians with other countries/citizens. Forty-seven provincial and territorial documents, current in 1988 for grades one through 12, were analyzed around the following questions: 1. What rationales and goals are used to justify and guide the pursuit of global education? 2. What is the recommended content (concepts, topics, geographic coverage, global problems, extent of global/local connections, disciplinary orientations, and overall amount) of global education? 3. What characteristics of a global perspective are advanced? To pursue these questions, a 16 page analysis instrument was developed in light of the varying definitions, rationales, and concepts evident in the global education literature, and to allow for a wide-ranging analysis of the nature and extent of global education recommended in the curricula. According to the analysis there is considerable space for the pursuit of global education within classrooms across Canada. There is little indication of a lack of overall support for such endeavours. If a teacher has the knowledge and inclination, a significant amount of global studies could be pursued in the classroom, as there are few constraints imposed by most curricula. Overwhelmingly, positive rather than negative characteristics of a global perspective are evident. However, the rationales and goals used to justify and guide the pursuit of global education, as well as the range of recommended concepts, topics and geographic regions, differ considerably across curricula. Current controversial topics are ignored in general, and value reasoning, while identified as a goal by many provinces, is not adequately supported with instructions or examples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".