MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404913692 · doi:10.1080/00933104.2024.2430782

What is the word “difficult” doing in social studies research?: A systematic literature review of empirical research on difficult knowledges and histories, 2004–2022

2024· article· en· W4404913692 on OpenAlexaff
Brittany L. Jones, Kimberly Edmondson

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory & Research in Social Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord (group theory)Empirical researchSystematic reviewPsychologyEpistemologySociologyLinguisticsCognitive scienceComputer scienceManagement sciencePolitical scienceMEDLINEEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review of research investigates the empirical scholarship on difficult knowledges and difficult histories within the field of social studies education. Guided by critical conceptualizations of discourse, our analysis revealed that the research on “difficult” topics can (re)produce unequal power dynamics and (re)center whiteness within social studies education. The authors offer recommendations to researchers, teacher educators, and educators on how to mitigate the potential harm that can be (re)produced from uncritically researching and teaching historical topics as difficult.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.219 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory & Research in Social EducationSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207