Education and Sustainability: The Case of Emotions Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Firms working in the third millennium have to face the challenge of being more sustainable. The complexity and the multidisciplinary nature of sustainability also requires new and specific knowledge. This means the necessity of a critical rethinking of the education system in the way to provide the cognitive tools and applications needed for new generations to address environmental, economic, and social challenges. In this perspective, the role of the school it is crucial, above all, to encourage attention to include sustainability as a theme on educational programs, focusing on the promotion of its multiple dimensions. Interdisciplinary sustainability programs are emerging globally, but little is known about the learning in these educational contexts.Therefore, the current research explores training modules used in the activities of a park to verify how students can receive a sustainable education from primary school; whether and in which way education can be a driver for the promotion of sustainable development; and whether it is effective to insert eco-activities such as eco-games, eco-campus, and eco-sports in the training modules from primary school onwards. For this purpose, the paper employed a single case study approach using the Emotions Park as a teaching plan. In particular, game and sports constantly accompany the training process by creating interdisciplinary links with different study subjects (e.g., civic education, environmental education, communication). Through the eco-activities, an innovative way to promote environmental and sustainability education was explored as a training model. Outdoor play, observation, and stimulation of the senses have proved powerful learning tools, and key to the acquisition of skills. Research data were collected observing the behavior of a sample of 22 participants and through face-to-face semi-structured interviews with educators, employee and students. The empirical observation suggests that inserting the sustainability principles as a topic in didactic programs provides the cognitive tools and applications needed for the new generations to address environmental, economic, and social challenges.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".