MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241044245 · doi:10.1163/9781848880078_010

Critical Democratic Pedagogy through the Arts: Within a Culture of Democracy in Ontario Secondary Schools

2011· book-chapter· en· W4241044245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary Drinkwater

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyPedagogyThe artsCritical pedagogyCurriculumDialecticEquity (law)Social justiceSociologyDiversity (politics)Power (physics)Action (physics)Critical thinkingPolitical sciencePublic relationsSocial scienceEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical democratic pedagogy sees education as an on-going, two way dialectic process that is built around the experiences of the student and allows for critical thinking and action to help students grow. In a truly democratic school, students are given the opportunity to have their voices heard and to build on their previous experiences and interests to plan for their continuing growth. Moreover, it explicitly focuses on issues of power, equity, social justice and diversity. Education in and through the arts provides opportunities for all students to engage in an active curriculum which encourages critical inquiry and expression of relevant social issues. Additionally, it can help to build community through increased understanding and tolerance within schools. This chapter will build on a conception of a culture of democracy in Ontario secondary schools which had been developed by this author in an earlier paper.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0330.015
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207