Environmental education and the Cheetah Conservation Fund : exploring children's value-based relationships with cheetahs / by Courtney Hughes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For this thesis I collaborated with the Namibian Cheetah Conservation Fund \n(CCF) to research how farming children perceive and experience cheetahs. I also explored how CCF?s educational documents might affect the ways children (re)construct their value-based relationships with cheetahs. \nThe first part of my study used storytelling as a research methodology. Children were asked to create drawn, written, and verbal stories as a way to explain how they perceive, experience, and (re)construct their value-based relationships with cheetahs, following their experiences with CCF?s cheetah run and prior to their experiences with CCF?s formal education program. Children?s stories were grouped into common or similar elements or patterns as meanings emerged through analysis and interpretations. \nMy analysis found that children (re)construct valuations of cheetahs through their lived experiences with CCF, family, and school instruction. For the second part of my study, my examination of CCF?s educational documents, I referred to Elliot Eisner?s (1979) concept of the three curricula to learn how \nCCF portrays human-cheetah relationships in a farming context. I also used this concept to explore how CCF?s portrayal might affect the ways children (re)construct their valuations of cheetahs. My examination revealed that CCF?s documents are value-laden, conveying their opinions on, and valuations for, cheetahs as well as other Namibian animals. I also learned that both explicit statements and implicit messages, conveyed through educational documents, can effect how children (re)construct their value-based relationships with cheetahs, and quite possibly, with the natural world in its completeness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".