Restoring ‘Duty’ to the Discourse of Rights and Citizenship Education: A Radical Retrenchment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an argument that serious consideration of citizenship education requires a reconsideration of the principle of duty. Such a view is in marked counterpoint to the argument about the need to educate young Canadians about their ‘rights’ under provincial human rights regimes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Important as ‘rights education‘ and the development of a ‘rights consciousness’ are in Canada, we shall argue that such a perspective tends to downplay the notion--philosophically correlative to ‘right'–that of 'duty’. The argument, relying on Selbourne’s analysis, develops a perspective about the restoration of the primacy of civic duty in this discourse, together with the consequent discussion of civic obligations as essential constituent elements of citizenship 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 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 | 0.028 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.122 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".