MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033568608

Review of "No More Teachers, No More Books: The Commercialization of Canada's Schools"

2000· review· en· W7033568608 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network) · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommercializationCITESInvestment (military)DeregulationChristian ministryCurriculumIdeal (ethics)LegislationProduct (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No More Teachers, No More Books" is Heather-jane Robertson's examination of Canadian public education.Regarding which, she says, "we may talk of who has power, but not of who profits; what is illegal, but not what is unjust; and of education to train workers but not of education for itself."She criticizes deals between a fast-food giant and schools of preteens, and between a ministry and a brewery for curriculum on safe drinking.She laments that educational debate is limited to what brand of technology to purchase, not the role of technology in education.Governments are being advised to replace schools with virtual classrooms.Robertson cites studies showing that virtual classrooms and virtual teachers don't improve a child's learning, but they do retard social skills.Technology manufacturers, not children, benefit from virtual classrooms.Public education is being attacked by deregulation pundits.The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) says public goods and services, such as education, are governmental monopolies interfering with business freedom.The MAI says governments must let business compete in providing education or compensate for the lost opportunity to profit.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network)Same topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207