An Analysis of the Achievement Standards of the Home Economics Curriculum in Ontario, Canada from the Perspective of Habermas' Three Systems of Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the achievement standards presented in the Home Economics (HE) curriculum in Ontario, Canada, from the perspective of Habermas's three systems of action (technical, communicative, and emancipative action) to determine how these three systems are reflected in the achievement standards of the curriculum. The study analyzed the achievement standards of the HE curriculum (grades 9-12) in Ontario, Canada, using content analysis techniques and calculated the frequency and percentage. The Canadian HE curriculum in Ontario consists of Fashion, Housing, Food and Nutrition, General Family Studies, and Raising and Caring for Children, with a total of 1,035 achievement standards in technical (47.6%), communicative (35.5%), and emancipative action (16.9%). There were differences in the main action of each unit, but most units reflected the three systems of action to present achievement standards. In the results of this study, the HE curriculum in Ontario, Canada can be used as basic data to realize the mission of HE Education by presenting achievement standards according to Habermas' three systems of action.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".