MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912993379 · doi:10.11575/jet.v45i2.52226

The Application of a Strength-Based Approach of Students' Behaviours to the Development of a Character Education Curriculum for Elementary and Secondary Schools

2018· article· en· W2912993379 on OpenAlexaff
Justin R.E. Rawana, Jessica L. Franks, Keith Brownlee, Edward P. Rawana, Raymond Neckoway

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicValues and Moral Education
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)OperationalizationCurriculumCharacter educationCharacter developmentPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyCharacter traitsSocial psychologyEpistemologyMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Character education programs have gained increasing interest in the past decade and are designed to produce students who are thoughtful , ethical, morally responsible, community oriented, and self-disciplined. However, curriculums to develop character education programs have not always been readily embraced by either educators or students. Character is diffuse, abstract, and global and is not easily operationalized into lesson plans. Personal strengths of students, on the other hand, are important aspects of character that have the added advantage of being concrete, specific, and experiential. In this paper, it is argued that by developing a curriculum of character education that is based upon students' strengths in multiple domains of functioning, it is possible to achieve the goals of character 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgarySame topicValues and Moral EducationFrench-language works237,207