Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores history education research in Canada by analysing three important studies conducted prior to 1970. The article considers how history education has shifted across these reports and what questions and problems remain stubbornly consistent and contemporary in history classrooms, despite regular interventions, reforms, papers, studies and curricular initiatives. The three research projects discussed in this article provide glimpses into how research on history education in Canada has been conducted, and what assumptions, questions and beliefs have driven it. In comparing these three studies, the article identifies important continuities and changes for Canadian history education researchers over time. In thinking across these three studies, the article also identifies and reflects on what paradigms of educational thought are present in each case, and how the socio-cultural-political context they were conducted in shaped the research. The article argues that each of these three studies reflects key debates in educational theory, including questions about progressive education and the civic and citizenship function of history education in society. The article also raises questions and issues for researchers interested in conducting national studies of history education in other national contexts with similarly decentralised education systems. Finally, the article addresses what might be learnt by current history education researchers doing similar work today.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".