Arts and Inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of creativity and the arts in education is receiving attention around the world (Shaheen, 2010). At the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Education, 25 undergraduate students used inquiry learning (“a self-directed, question-driven search for understanding” Hudspith & Jenkins, 2001, p. 9) to investigate this topic. Five group inquiries were undertaken as part of EPSE 411, Using the Arts in Educatian, Teaching, and Learning. Topics included (a) Arts and Inclusion; (b) Arts and Teacher Self Care; (c) Arts Across the Lifespan; (d) Dance, Student Learning, and Student Wellbeing; and (e) Drama and Belonging. Five posters have been created that identify key inquiry questions, sub-questions, and their significance; information sources accessed and analyzed (including community learning experiences); and implications for educators. These valuable explorations help advance understanding, practice, and scholarship.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.005 |
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".