MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7144400972

多文化共生教育 : バンクス、ゲイ、グラント、スリーター、ニエトの視点から

2006· article· ja· W7144400972 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Practices and Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticultural educationMulticulturalismEmpowermentIgnorancePrejudice (legal term)Cultural diversityEquity (law)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multicultural education is not well known. Rather, it is misunderstood and people have a bias against it. In this paper, in order to challenge ignorance and prejudice against multicultural education, I should examine the perspectives on multicultural education cultivated by Banks, Gay, Grant, Sleeter, and Nieto who are the leading scholars in this field. In fact, there are a variety of theories and practices on this education in countries all around the world such as Britain, Australia, Canada, U.S. Israel, Russia, France, Germany, China, India, Brazil and Japan. Even in U.S. alone there are plenty of other concepts. In addition, not only in the field of education, but also in that of Afrocentlism, bilingual education, Japanese/English as the second language, feminism and so on, there are many mentions on multicultural education. However, in order to keep this discussion manageable, I will limit this discussion to ideas of these five scholars. They all understand multicultural education in sociopolitical context. Banks shows five dimensions on multicultural education which are: 1) content integration, 2) knowledge construction process, 3) prejudice reduction, 4) equity pedagogy and 5) empowering school culture and social structure. Gay sets seven categories of multicultural education which are: 1) developing ethnic and cultural literacy, 2) personal development, 3) attitudes and value clarification, 4) multicultural social competence, 5) basic skill proficiency, 6) educational equity and excellence, and 7) personal empowerment for social reform. Grant and Sleeter develop five approaches as follows: 1) teaching the exceptional and culturally different, 2) human relations, 3) single - group studies, 4) multicultural education, and 5) education that is multicultural and social reconstructionist. Nieto also defines multicultural education in sociopolitical context. She mentions seven definitions which are: 1) antiracist education, 2) basic education, 3) important (education) for all students, 4) pervasive education, 5) education for social justice, 6) a process and 7) critical pedagogy. As a fact, there is a big confusion of the meaning of multicultural education. Multicultural education is very different things to different people. On the other hand, however, as Banks says, "there is general agreement among most scholars and researchers (Banks, 2001, p.3)." The agreement of these five scholars are: 1) education for multicultural literacy, 2) antidiscrimination education, 3) education for social justice which fosters responsible citizens, 4) pervasive education, 5) education for individual empowerment. Multicultural education isn't the therapy for some students but the indispensable idea and perspective in order to create democratic education.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.309 · 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