The moral and practical competencies in values negotiation, and the role of relational experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of values is becoming increasingly relevant in higher education, particularly in addressing sustainability challenges that include issues of ethics and diversity (von Weizsacker et al., 2009; Davis, 2001). In order to meaningfully discuss the role of educators in values pedagogy, this paper examines the processes by which young people learn and perform values. Findings are drawn from a larger qualitative study on the negotiation of intergenerational values, which included in-depth interviews with sixteen young adults of Korean descent residing in the Greater Toronto. Data analysis revealed that the young people with experience in cultural adaptation have vested interest and abilities in negotiating conceptual meanings, commitment priorities, contextual fit, and practical expression of values. The author suggests that the educators can demonstrate and help enhance these skills student learning. Experiences of responsibility, recognition, and empathy were key influences in young people’s efforts to align personal values and relational practices. It is argued that the ethical experiences embedded in the learners’ relationship to the educators and peers are of paramount importance in facilitating critical examination of tensions and plurality in values.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".