MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300826401

Curricular Critique of an Environmental Education Policy Framework: Acting Today, Shaping Tomorrow

2015· article· en· W4300826401 on OpenAlexaffabout
Douglas D. Karrow, Xavier Fazio

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental educationEnvironmental policyPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsEnvironmental ethicsSociologyPublic administrationPedagogyEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringEconomicsEnvironmental sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following paper is a curricular critique of an environmental education policy framework called Acting Today, Shaping Tomorrow (2009). It is founded upon: (a) an examination of the conventional argument for integrated curriculum models and its relevance to K-12 environmental education; and (b) utilization of a typology of integrated curriculum models to analyze an environmental education policy framework within the jurisdiction of Ontario, Canada. In conclusion, Ontario’s environmental education policy framework tends toward an integrated curriculum model referred to as ‘selective infusion.’ The implications for integrated curricular practice are identified, with recommendations for improving the policy framework from an integrated curricular perspective.\n\n\n Key Words: environmental education, integrated curriculum, curriculum critique, education policy.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.032
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0100.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.543
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207