MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597744801 · doi:10.18357/jcs.v39i3.15235

21st-Century Vision Using a 20th-Century Curriculum: Examining British Columbia’s Kindergarten Curriculum Package

2015· article· en· W2597744801 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Laura Teichert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Childhood Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumChristian ministryPlan (archaeology)Political scienceSociologyPedagogyLibrary scienceHistoryComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a critical analysis of British Columbia’s early learning curricula concerning 21st-century education and the role of digital technology in the early years. The data sources were the Premier’s Technology Council: A Vision for 21st-Century Education (Premier’s Technology Council, 2010), BC’s Education Plan (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2011), and the Kindergarten Curriculum Package (British Columbia Ministry of Education, September 2010). Rapid advances in technology call for a review of traditional curriculum standards and active movement toward a realization of 21st-century education beyond mere vision. As children navigate an increasingly digital world, one with blurred lines between content and advertising, critical thinking and critical analysis skills are essential in order for children to effectively manage the vast amounts of information available to them. Educators and policy makers, through curricula developed reflecting digital media use, can play an important role in educating young, technologically engaged students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Childhood StudiesSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207