MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Question of How

2015· book-chapter· en· W4416651466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angela MacDonald-Vemic, Mark Evans, Leigh-Anne Ingram, Nadya Weber

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipGlobal citizenshipMetropolitan areaCitizenship educationQualitative researchGlobal educationGlobal citizenship educationConceptual framework

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter reports how educating for global citizenship is being practiced by teachers in the K–12 education landscape in three metropolitan regions of Canada. First, we briefly review the history of global citizenship education in Canada to contextualize the foundation upon which educating for global citizenship is being understood and practiced by teachers. Next, we introduce a series of conceptual frameworks that synthesize common priorities linked to educating for global citizenship in educational policy, practice, and research communities. Lastly, we report findings from a qualitative research study that we conducted between 2008 and 2011 on educating for global citizenship from the perspectives of Canadian public school teachers from three metropolitan regions. This study investigated teachers’ learning goals, instructional practices, and orientations when educating for global citizenship and how each contributes to the other. In this chapter we focus on teachers’ instructional practices though we consider these alongside their stated learning goals and orientations in order to broaden our analysis to not only consider how participating teachers’ educate for global citizenship, but also why. We report that across regions and methods of participation, although to varying degrees, teachers involved in this study reported using instructional practices oriented to teaching for worldmindedness, civic action, and to a slightly lesser extent, critical literacy. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of the findings and their implications for educational policy, practice, and research communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.040
Scholarly communication0.0150.013
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.005

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Education and MulticulturalismFrench-language works237,207