MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605103032

“I like to take everything and put it in my own words”: Historical Consciousness, Historical Thinking, and Learning with Community History Museums

2017· article· en· W2605103032 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Cynthia Wallace-Casey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoiceHistorical thinkingContext (archaeology)ConsciousnessSociologyTypologyVisual artsAction (physics)Action researchPedagogyCritical thinkingMedia studiesHistoryPsychologyAnthropologyArchaeologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents ndings from a recent case study involving seventh-grade students ( n = 25) and a group of community history museum adult volunteers ( n = 5). Over 14 weeks, participants engaged in a series of scaffolding activities designed around a Material History Framework for Historical Thinking. The purpose of the inquiry was to explore pragmatic applications for historical thinking within a community history museum. Data collection included pre- and post- Canadians and Their Pasts surveys, written assignments, photovoice photography, in-depth interviews, and a nal class - room museum project. Conclusions are discussed within the context of Rusen’s (1987, 1993, 2004) typology of historical consciousness. This article presents a “call to action” for community history museums in Canada. It points to ways in which students can be empowered to become active members of a museum’s community of inquiry.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0240.031
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207