MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W560021357 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-986-9_8

The Uniformity of Diversity in Canadian Curriculum Documents

2015· book-chapter· en· W560021357 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kurt W. Clausen

Bibliographic record

VenueSensePublishers eBooks · 2015
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnotationCurriculumMeaning (existential)Diversity (politics)Section (typography)Original meaningMathematics educationEngineeringSociologyComputer sciencePedagogyPsychologyPolitical scienceLinguisticsPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I have noticed that many words used in curriculum documents tend to be devilishly hard to pin down, much like that last pea rattling around on an almost finished dinner plate. You think you have found the definitive meaning of the term, and – presto- it has a different connotation in another section. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.020
Science and technology studies0.0160.013
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensePublishers eBooksSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207