The rhetorical constructions of global citizenship and the location of youth: A critical analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent growth of global citizenship scholarship, especially in so-called Western universities, could entice us into making constructive assumptions about the viability of this area of study and teaching. Especially with respect to the lives of young people, the promise of global citizenship and its growing disciplinary popularity can be read as contributing to more connected and selectively realizable world communities, which share more of their lives' possibilities for the wellbeing of all. With this in mind, and with a continuing focus on the rhetorical claims of global citizenship – as opposed to the practical or even quasi-practical actualizations of such citizenship – and as a select thematic response to The National Youth White Paper on Global Citizenship (2015) produced by high school students in Canada, this paper attempts to expose the weaknesses that are ingrained in the scholarly constructions of the case. It also analyses the precarious global citizenship location of youth in both developed and developing world contexts. At the end, the paper suggests possible ways of educating for a more inclusive global citizenship, which values all knowledge systems and advances the wellbeing of diverse communities across the world.
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it