MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413104804 · doi:10.1093/jopedu/qhaf053

New place-based educational initiatives in the Welsh curriculum and some legacies of the Canadian experience: a conversation

2025· article· en· W4413104804 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dylan Adams, David W. Jardine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Philosophy of Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous and Place-Based Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelshCurriculumAutonomySociologyPedagogyMainstreamContext (archaeology)Curriculum theoryConversationCurriculum developmentPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we examine aspects of new placed-based educational initiatives in the Welsh curriculum, and parallels with similar Canadian initiatives. The article grew out of an email exchange between its two authors, emerging from discussions of these matters—both at the level of philosophical underpinnings, and in light of the classroom and school experiences of those participating—in the context of a Welsh graduate class. The new national curriculum in Wales enables greater teacher autonomy than did previous curricula, and encourages the prioritization of localized knowledge and inquiry. This has given rise to debate over the merits of giving teachers autonomy to design their own place-based curricula. The overarching aim of this article is to show how such curricula have the potential to afford an understanding and experience of knowledge and being which contrast with the, often hidden, legacies of mainstream Westernized schools. Through analysis of philosophical perspectives from hermeneutics and ecology, and examples of place-based, inquiry-led learning in Canadian schools, we argue that place-based curricula potentially allow for the experience of an ontology of relations, in a way that is enriching for both students and teachers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.297 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Philosophy of EducationSame topicIndigenous and Place-Based EducationFrench-language works237,207