MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895202085 · doi:10.15402/esj.v4i1.307

Community Service-Learning: Why Can’t Canada Be More Like Mexico?

2018· article· en· W2895202085 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Victoria Calvert, Halia Valladares Montemayor

Bibliographic record

VenueEngaged Scholar Journal Community-Engaged Research Teaching and Learning · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateGovernment (linguistics)CitizenshipService (business)Political scienceDocumentationService-learningCommunity engagementPublic relationsNational servicePublic administrationBusinessPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Mexico, the community service strategy and requirements for undergraduate students are both longstanding and mandated by the Mexican Constitution. Students undertake a minimum of 480 hours of service during their undergraduate degrees, which are coordinated through their universities’ Social Service (SS) departments. Many Canadian universities and colleges offer community service through courses and volunteer programs; however, the practice and adoption levels vary widely. Student involvement with community partners, as represented through community service-learning (CSL) and volunteerism in Canada, are sponsored by many post-secondary institutions but are not driven by a national agenda. While, in Mexico, community service is documented at a departmental and institutional level for reporting to stakeholders and the government, in Canada, documentation of community service varies with the institutional mandate and is often sporadic or non-existent; the imperative for systematic student engagement and citizenship development has not been recognized at the national level. This research paper provides an overview of the community engagement practices in both countries, with the national patterns represented through a summative review of selected Canadian and Mexican universities. Suggestions for processes and practices for Canada are proposed based upon the Mexican model.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.824
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.505
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.8240.505
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.7980.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.802
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.236 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngaged Scholar Journal Community-Engaged Research Teaching and LearningSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207