Historical Hegemony or Warranted Adaptation? A Response to Smith
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his article “Methodologically Historicizing Social Studies Education: Curricular Filtering and Historical Thinking as Social Studies Thinking,” Bryan Smith draws attention to limitations and confusions in the social studies thinking framework introduced by the Ontario Ministry of Education (OME; 2013) in its latest Grade 1–8 social studies, geography, and history curriculum (pp. 58–60). Smith’s underlying concern is that the OME has employed a conception of historical thinking developed by Peter Seixas (2015) as the basis for a framework for thinking in social studies. Smith argues that minor linguistic changes to Seixas’s terminology mask the predominantly historical focus of OME’s framework. According to Smith (2017), the imposition of historical thinking concepts ignores the interdisciplinary nature of social studies by privileging historical methods of inquiry over the methodologies of other social studies disciplines (p. 1).
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 | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".