Finding Possible Policy Directions in the Shared Purposes of History and Social Studies Education: A Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Productive policy directions begin by acknowledging common fundamental purposes of history and social studies education: those of engaged and critical citizenship. The "problems of democracy" course suggested by the Committee on Social Studies was an early example of this, and the current approach to social studies in the Alberta provincial curriculum is a contemporary instance. Alberta defines social studies as: the study of people in relation to each other and to their world. It is an issues-focused and inquiry-based interdisciplinary subject that draws upon history, geography, ecology, economics, law, philosophy, political science, and other social science disciplines. Social studies foster students&s; understanding of and involvement in practical and ethical issues that face their communities and humankind. Curricular organization across the Canadian provinces illustrates a range of ways in which history and social studies are linked, or not, in policy. As the above quote indicates, Alberta holds the most thorough commitment to social studies as a synthetic subject.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".