Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents some data from a national study conducted in Canada, and refers to other studies that have focused on the problem. Theory concerns the beliefs, philosophical basis, pedagogical assumptions, conceptual understanding, and rationale related to such questions as what should be taught, why teach it, and how to teach it effectively. Teachers ranged from those who felt that children’s ability to choose was unreliable and idiosyncratic to those who assumed that all children have interests and were thereby able to relate individualised interests to common educational goals across the curriculum. Alterations in theory and practice can be seen as the interplay between a set of specific practices and its underlying belief and conceptual structure. Materials represent the medium in which this interplay is carried out. Many institutions have adapted to the problem of the irrelevance of theory by increasing the practice teaching or other field aspects of the programme.
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 | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".