Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This article develops a critique of contemporary understandings and practices related to well-being in education. It proposes a fuller development of wholeness and purpose that supplements and goes beyond the new well-being agenda. Design/Approach/Methods: This article draws upon a document analysis of conceptual and policy frameworks related to well-being. It builds its critique of well-being with reference to a qualitative study consisting of 222 interviews with educators in the Canadian province of Ontario with regard to their understandings of well-being. It includes references to the research and development work in the U.S., Germany, and Norway. Findings: The inclusion of well-being in policy agendas is an important step forward in the field of educational change, but this indication of progress is in danger of being reified through simplistic understandings of life satisfaction and other frameworks that evade the complexity of human development. Wholeness and purpose are concepts that include but also go beyond well-being that should be addressed by educators. Originality/Value: Most of the criticisms of the new well-being agenda in educational policies and research simply assume its status as a summum bonum for human development. This essay acknowledges the importance of well-being but expands beyond it to define wholeness and purpose as an alternative set of constructs with their own independent integrity that should not simply be subsumed into current well-being agendas.
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 | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".