The Influence of Progressive Education in the History of Community Organizations in Canada, 1900-1950
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herbart M. Kliebard states, in his view of progressivism in America, that there was no “unified,” progressive education movement. According to him, progressive education involved four interest groups- humanists (traditional views of learning), developmentalists (natural child development), social efficiency educators (effective, industrial views of school and society), and social meliorists (promoters of social justice and change)- that each had their own interests and agendas for education. This study will examine the tenets of these groups and extend them to the creation of community organizations in Canada. The research questions include: What is the influence of progressive thought on the formation of child and youth community organizations in Canada? How were organizations like the Girl Guides, the 4-H Clubs, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada implemented in response to progressive thoughts around children and learning from 1900-1950? What can we learn from this study about the connections between education and community in Canada’s past? I will use Kliebard’s interest groups as a framework in which to examine primary sources related to the creation of community organizations in Canada, including what is known today as the Girl Guides, 4-H Clubs, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".