MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W143986077 · doi:10.5206/eei.v19i2.7642

Inclusion in French Immersion in Canada: One Parent’s Perspective

2009· article· en· W143986077 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality Education International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Perspective (graphical)PedagogyConstruct (python library)French immersionPsychologyDiversity (politics)SociologyContext (archaeology)Mathematics educationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyComputer scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through an examination of one mother’s journals about her son’s academic struggles to navigate the French immersion (FI) program in Canada, this article explores the tensions that exist when the construct of “inclusion” is juxtaposed against that particular second language-learning context. The analysis of the mother’s journals revealed three distinct stress points between the two systems: the conflict between the diagnostic policies/procedures for learning disabilities and the ideals of inclusion, the “status” often accorded to FI and how that has naturally inhibited inclusion, and the limitations of the research on struggling students in FI. This article argues that in this age of celebrated learner diversity and calls for corresponding differentiated instruction, these stress points must be addressed in order for FI to foster a learning environment that is accessible and beneficial to all.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.257 · 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