Bibliographic record
Abstract
One may ask why there are only few subject-based Science Education Research groups in Canada, unlike in USA, Europe, Australia or Latin America where subject-based Science Education Research flourishes. The main reason is the virtual absence of funding for subject-based Science Education Research at the national and provincial levels, with very few exceptions. In the absence of sustainable long-term funding, graduate programs based within Science Departments cannot be established. Another problem that hinders the development of the field is a disconnect that exists between Science Departments and Faculties of Education. Physics Education Research (PER) provides a good example for examining the challenges faced by subject-based Education Research in Canada. Almost all recent Canadian PER initiatives happened despite the lack of PER funding at both national and provincial levels. These efforts are initiated by the individuals, small groups and some universities. As a result, mostly a patchwork of short-term PER research projects currently exists in Canada, and the long-term sustainability of these research efforts remains problematic. As an outgoing Chair of the Division of Physics Education of the Canadian Association of Physicists, I will provide a few case studies of recent successful physics education initiatives in Canada. Despite the difficulties we face, PER movement in Canada is building slowly from the ground up. However, the long-term future of PER in Canada remains uncertain. The united effort by science educators representing various science disciplines is needed to overcome present challenges imposed by the current lack of funding for Science Education Research.
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 | 0.044 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".