深層對話：課程研究國際化下的知識突破時機Complicated Conversation: Occasions for “Intellectual Breakthrough” in the Internationalization of Curriculum Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
學校課程及課程研究與發展乃植基於個別國家文化與政治情境，因此，針對各國文化所進行的課程研究，將能激發更多對課程的自覺與反思，讓研究者敏覺地、批判地看待在地或外來的學術影響來源。課程研究的國際化試圖以一些可以含納國家、國際課程問題的語言與議題，促成「超越國家」的課程理解。這樣的國際化研究，在縱貫層面上，要探究各個國家的課程史；在水平層面上，要了解學校課程中文化、社會、政治的內涵，並促成各國學者之間、不同概念之間的深層對話。 深層對話的促成有賴三個時機：個人的批判分析與自我反思、藉由學術會議所引發的社群磋商、對學術會議中研究報告的再研究以獲得心得。在這些時機中，由於參與課程研究的學者得以暫時遠離熟悉的在地情境與規範，可以像個「陌生人」般，去質疑、評論本國或他國的課程事件與問題，因而可以促成在地化與全球化的協商。因此，課程研究的國際化可以創造超越國家的課程對話空間，並引發知識上的突破。 Studying the academic field of curriculum studies locally and globally (as each is imbricated in the other) might enable scholars to make more sophisticated their critical and intellectual distance from their respective national cultures and from those standardizing processes of globalization against which numerous national cultures are now reacting so strongly. Such study will enable a more sophisticated, self-conscious, judicious participation in the accelerating internationalization of curriculum studies. Through the study I propose here, curriculum studies scholars will be supported in their efforts to understand their local and global circumstances. Such efforts and our support of them will enable scholars to study and thereby participate the emergence of a worldwide curriculum studies field, with a vocabulary and intellectual agenda that incorporates and expresses both national and international curriculum questions. Can intellectual advancement? In nationally-distinctive academic fields of curriculum studies, as individual scholars participating in an academic community? Be supported through three occasions of study: 1) of nationally-distinctive fields of curriculum study, 2) through dialogical encounter with scholar-participants and with international consultants, and 3) resulting in academic culture creation, both local and global?
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".