MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389792095 · doi:10.35542/osf.io/cynw2

Does Ontario’s Ministry of Education Promote Critical Theory in K-12 Education?

2023· preprint· en· W4389792095 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen G. Reich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryFraming (construction)TerminologySociologyPedagogyPessimismPolitical scienceCritical theoryPublic administrationSocial scienceEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical Theory (CT) has evolved from European neo-Marxism into American Identitarianism. Its pedagogy seeks societal revolution by re-focusing children’s education on identity power conflicts. CT has been criticized in the literature as pedagogically misguided, harmful to low SES students, dependent on stereotyping, hostile to evidence, and self-serving; therefore, any adoption by educational policy-makers begs for an explanation. This thesis examines whether Ontario’s Ministry of Education has indeed promoted CT in K-12 education. I employ mixed methods to define key terminology, and track its usage in 673 Ministry policy documents spanning 1982-2022. I find that the Ministry – even under the Conservatives – has increasingly adopted CT terms while poorly and inconsistently defining them. I attribute this to opportunistic framing, institutional isomorphism, and elite agenda-setting, arguing that the Ministry is generating disregard for empirically-tested teaching methods necessary for literacy, numeracy and critical thinking proficiency. Additionally, CT’s pessimistic divisiveness threatens social and civic cohesion.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0160.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207