MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2757141201 · doi:10.1177/1746197917731276

The Enlightenment conceptions of pedagogy and global citizenship education: A Canadian case study

2017· article· en· W2757141201 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alireza Asgharzadeh, Zabedia Nazim

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Citizenship and Social Justice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsCentennial CollegeYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnlightenmentCitizenshipRationalityEmpiricismSociologyField (mathematics)PedagogyHigher educationLiberal educationSocial scienceEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyLiberal arts education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary liberal education owes its existence to various educational ideas and pedagogical formulas that emerged from the 18th century intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment. Many Enlightenment conceptions, principles, and practices such as public schooling, equality of opportunity, freedom of expression, critical thinking, scientific methodology, empiricism, and rationality constitute the backbone of current liberal education. Despite this, in recent years, most of these Enlightenment legacies have come into sharp contrast with neoliberalization policies and practices that are plaguing the contemporary educational domains, in general, and the field of higher education, in particular. To what extent are the current institutions of higher learning able to cope with the onslaught of neoliberalization policies and practices? This article explores this question by juxtaposing relevant educational and pedagogical conceptions of the Enlightenment against some of the contemporary challenges and struggles in the field of education.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0390.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.367 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation Citizenship and Social JusticeSame topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207