MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788223731 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11566

Producing “Good” Citizens: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Ontario Ministry of Education’s Publication, Achieving excellence

2016· dissertation· en· W2788223731 on OpenAlexaffabout
Codie Fortin Lalonde

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceCritical discourse analysisChristian ministrySociologyCompromiseCitizenshipDiscourse analysisHigher educationPolitical sciencePublic relationsPedagogyPublic administrationSocial scienceLawLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers are concerned that education is increasingly pressured and influenced by market-driven agendas which may compromise or usurp education as a vehicle for social justice and critical thinking.In this study, I employ Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a theoretical framework and research method to examine the discursive construction of education in the Ontario Ministry of Education's (OME) 2014 publication entitled, Achieving excellence: A renewed vision for education in Ontario (hereafter referred to as Achieving excellence).I use Fairclough's three dimensional framework to look at metaphors, lexical choices, and multimodal features within the text.My findings suggest that Achieving excellence discursively constructs education as a path to employment and connects employment to good citizenship.This appears to be a trend within neoliberal society, which requires further critical study.create a balance in my work.Dr. Sheyholislami provided detailed feedback and wise academic advice.Without knowing it, Dr. Fox's words have picked me up and dusted me off many times.Thanks are also due to the superb faculty in this department in general, and more specifically to Joan Grant for always living up to the "Joan Knows" folklore, and to Natasha Artemeva for planting the seed all those years ago.I would like to express my gratitude to both of my parents.My Mom for listening, reading drafts, and printing and mailing me endless articles and book chapters as well as for understanding and encouraging my passion.My Dad for his sense of humour, encouragement, and his contagious pride in me.Thank you to my extended and enormous family for always supporting me.My grandparents (

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
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 score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0280.037
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207