MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101831767 · doi:10.65214/2164-7992.1589

Framing Citizenship and Citizenship Formation for Preservice Teachers: A Critical Review of Prominent Trends in the Research Literature

2022· article· en· W7101831767 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueDemocracy & Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipFraming (construction)General partnershipDemocracyCitizenship educationField (mathematics)Educational researchCritical theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Funded by Thinking Historically for Canada's Future, a research partnership supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, this article considers how, and the extent to which, contemporary research within the area of citizenship education for preservice teachers advances the creation of more genuinely democratic and socially just societies. Drawing on critical and anti-oppressive insights in education, we specifically examine themes, trends, and developments within research related to: (a) preservice teachers’ beliefs about citizenship, democracy, and related themes, and (b) the influence of pedagogical practices and program models on their citizenship dispositions and teaching practices. We conclude by offering a series of recommendations for future research and theorizing in the field of teacher education, including the need for studies that move away from deficiency-based research frames and expanded notions of citizenship beyond universalized liberal democratic understandings that currently dominate the field.

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)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.017
Science and technology studies0.0070.023
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDemocracy & EducationSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207