A Call for Teacher Professional Learning and the Study of Religion in Social Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religion is important to study in social studies because many religious iReligion is important to study in social studies because many religious individuals, groups, and movements engage with public issues and because countries are increasingly religiously diverse. In response, scholars are promoting education about religion in citizenship education. However, there remain few programs about religion in Canadian public schools and even less research about them. This article begins to address the gap by proposing three priorities for teacher professional learning and the study of religion for social studies teachers. The priorities are drawn from interviews with Alberta teachers, whose beliefs about religion in the classroom can be divided into three categories identified by the authors as nominal, attentive, and integrated. If many teachers fall into one of these categories, then the professional learning priorities suggested here have wide-ranging application.
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 | 0.132 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.127 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".