MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020899037

Need-Supportive Educational Structures : A Comparative Study of Policy Documents For Conventional And Democratic Education Through The Perspective of Self-Determination Theory

2025· article· en· W7020899037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)DemocracyEducation theoryDemocratic theoryDemocratic educationEducation policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis conducts a comparative study of the regulatory policy documents of the Swedish educational system and those of two democratic schools, Summerhill School and Sudbury Valley School, through the perspective of Self-Determination Theory. Aiming to analyze how the educational structures expressed in the policy documents may be argued to facilitate the basic psychological needs which Self-Determination Theory theorizes to be fundamental for the vitality, growth and well-being of human individuals. The theoretical foundations of Self-determination Theory will be presented, and the concepts of conventional education (which the Swedish educational system is argued to be an example of) and democratic education will be examined and defined through a discussion of educational approaches. Whereafter the policy documents will be analyzed by relating comparable educational themes of the two educational models to the theorizing of Self-Determination Theory.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0090.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.009
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)Same topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207