Science curriculum-making for the Anthropocene: perspectives and possibilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper illuminates how science curriculum-making can be reinvigorated to address urgent local and global socioscientific issues that centres place as an interconnected part of larger socio-ecological and socio-technical systems. Given how industrial and capitalistic extractive practices have pushed the planet beyond its complex life-sustaining limits, we draw on theoretical perspectives that recognise schools as complex systems, nested within local, regional, and global social-ecological-technological systems. Science curriculum-making in these systems prompts dialogue regarding knowledge and competencies required to address planetary sustainability, as well as ontological questions connected to systems, relations, and responsibility. Consequently, schools are important places for curriculum enactment practices. Furthermore, teachers, students, administrators, and school community members are enmeshed with local ecologies that are constituted in the cultural, material, and social arrangements found in or brought to a school and its local community. In our work, we draw on a curriculum commonplaces perspective to investigate curriculum-making practices. Specifically, we use empirical data from two cases of elementary and secondary science teachers developing and enacting curriculum and adopt a philosophical-empirical deductive approach illustrative of how to apply complexity theory, systems thinking, and associated ontological and epistemological views to practical reasoning of science curriculum-making for schools.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it