Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Letter from the Editorial Board Dede Addy As a nation, we continue to hold fast to a collective belief in education as one of the primary avenues to a more democratic and prosperous future. However, there are too many people struggling to get ahead and stay ahead, especially in the midst of a faltering economy. For over a decade, politicians and presidents have professed a renewed desire to turn around failing schools. The latest legislation calls us to "leave no child behind" and to "race to the top" of educational rankings worldwide; nevertheless, these nationwide policies have yet to ease our educational woes. Opportunity gaps persist between more privileged students and those who have historically been underserved, particularly low-income students and students of color. Two-thirds of eighth-graders cannot read at levels deemed proficient (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011), for example, and students in most industrialized nations outperform U.S. students in math, science, and reading (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2010). It is easy to lose hope in light of these circumstances, particularly for educators who work tirelessly with students every day. Despite the difficulties, educational reform movements continue. Some small-scale reform efforts include The Eagle Rock School, a residential high school in Colorado that provides tuition-free education to students who have otherwise given up on graduating from traditional schools. Public schools like Gregorio Luperón High School in New York City adopt additive approaches to bilingualism and biculturalism, drawing on the cultural assets of its students (Michael, Andrade, & Bartlett, 2007). Non-profit organizations like Student U in Durham, North Carolina, are aimed at increasing college access for lower-income middle and high school students. Academic and activist Jeff Duncan-Andrade aims to scale up his program of support, called Roses in Concrete, through "looping" and community involvement to create a sustainable model for urban education (see Duncan-Andrade, 2009). Similarly, Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone offers a model for community-based education with wrap-around services such as health care and family support. Many of these local efforts offer potential models for other educational programs around the nation. At The High School Journal, we welcome empirical studies and theoretical scholarship that examines new and continuing reform efforts. Changes in curriculum and new schooling models offer many possibilities for research. In particular, are there public school projects in which hope is instantiated in the daily work of students and teachers? What does hope in public schools look like, and how is it sustained amidst continued opportunity gaps and other problems facing students and teachers in U.S. schools? In what ways are high schools adapting to funding gaps due to sequestration and tight budgets? We know that there is a politics and rhetoric of problems that drench them in accusation and despair. We also know that there are real problems and real people working creatively and compassionately to bring vibrant learning experiences to students and to open their lives to possibility. We want to hear from them. Such research [End Page 265] might help us all maintain a sense of the critical hope (West, 2008) needed in order to continue our collective struggle for justice and equity. References Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses in concrete. Harvard Educational Review, 79, 181-194. Google Scholar Michael, A., Andrade, N., & Bartlett, L. (2007). Finding "success" in a bilingual high school. Urban Review, 39, 167-189. Google Scholar National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The nation's report card: Reading 2011. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Google Scholar Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2010). Programme for international student assessment 2009 results: Executive summary. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Google Scholar West, C. (2008). Hope on a tightrope. New York, NY: Smiley Books. [End Page 266] Google Scholar Copyright © 2013 The University of North Carolina Press
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,038 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,088 | 0,080 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».