Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the relationship between the Alternative Education Resources Organization (AERO), considered to be the “primary hub of communications and support for educational alternatives around the world,” and Canadian educators. As it turns out, Canadians, particularly Indigenous groups in Canada, were instrumental in shaping AERO. Educators from Ontario’s alternative education sector, as well as the free schools of British Columbia developed deep connections with AERO over the course of its rise from 1989 to 2003. These relationships helped reinforce AERO’s values surrounding self-directed learning and learner autonomy. An historical analysis was used to understand the influence Canadians had on AERO during the rise of the organization in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. This form of analysis works to reconstruct the past through the examination of primary source material, so that we may learn from the past and better understand the forces that shaped it. For its source material, this inquiry drew from the primary source documents released on AERO’s online archive. This archive contains copies of AERO’s publications from 1989 to 2011, such as The AERO-Gramme Newsletter and The Education Revolution Magazine. The chronological scope of this work encapsulates AERO rise, from 1989 to 2003.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".