Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Each spring teachers throughout Canada are required to administer a series of provinciallymandated tests to the students in their classes. Approximately six months later the results are made available to the public. It is now common practice for the press the report the results, to rank the schools according to the results, and to invite the public to engage in a school-by-school comparison of the rankings. It is also common practice for the press, in commenting on the poor performances displayed by certain schools, to place the blame for these performances largely, if not solely, on the schools themselves. Our concern over this practice is with the failure on the part of the press to acknowledge the many other factors aside from schooling that are known to influence test performance. These include, but are not limited to, family stability, parental involvement and expectations for student success in school, early and ongoing home stimulation, and student motivation, student absenteeism, as well as student capacity for learning. Because students are not randomly assigned to schools and because schools have little or no control over the majority of these factors, any attempt to place the blame for poor test performance on the schools alone without giving proper consideration to each of these other factors is problematic at best and misleading at worst. Hence, by taking such a narrow position when dealing with an issue as complex as the cause of students' test performances, we believe the public is being misinformed on a matter that is extremely important to the operation of schools and therefore to the education and well being of children. Our greatest concern, however, is over the possibility that this singular emphasis on the schools as the cause of students' test performances could generate considerable harm by placing unwarranted pressure on teachers, administrators, and ultimately on the students themselves to increase test scores or risk losing status within the community. Indeed, there is growing evidence that such harm is already occurring in the United States from similar comments in the US press concerning the poor performance of certain schools on the state-mandated tests. With the hope of preventing similar situations from occurring in Canada, and in line with the view expressed by the Ontario Education Quality and Accountability Office, which is responsible for the development and scoring of the Ontario exams, it is our position that it is improper for the press to invite the public to compare schools based solely on the outcome of the mandated test results. We also recommend that in any future articles that deal with the results, in order to avoid misleading the public, the press should ensure that the public is fully informed of the various factors, in addition to schooling, that are likely to account for differences that may exist among schools.
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 | 0,004 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,016 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,415 | 0,364 |
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 ».