MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282042084 · doi:10.14307/jfcs114.2.40

How Educational Philosophies Shape Family and Consumer Sciences and Home Economics Education: A Commentary

2022· article· en· W4282042084 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family & Consumer Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Sociology, Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFamily and consumer scienceEconomics educationBachelorCertificatePhilosophy of educationPedagogySociologyConstruct (python library)Mathematics educationHigher educationPsychologyVocational educationPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I began my teaching career in the mid-1970s totally unaware of the construct of educational philosophies. I attended teachers' college (1970–1972) to obtain a home economics teacher's license and certificate rather than a Bachelor of Education degree within an Education department. I do not remember ever being taught about this aspect of teaching. That is not to say it was not taught, just that I do not recall internalizing educational philosophy as an important part of being a home economics educator. It was not until 25 years later (early 2000s), when I began teaching home economics teacher education methods courses at a university (as part of an Education faculty, not a Home Economics department), that I discovered the notion of educational philosophies as espoused in educational foundations courses and textbooks. From then on, philosophical awareness was the mainstay of my approach to teaching preservice home economics teacher education methods in these courses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.523
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.241 · 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