EDUCATIONAL PRIOROTIES AND CAPACITY: A RURAL PERSPECTIVE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the congruence between the priorities of the Manitoba govern ‐ ment’s Kindergarten to Senior 4 (K ‐ S4) Education Agenda for Student Success and prior ‐ ities of stakeholders in a rural Manitoba school division, and the division’s capacity to achieve them. Capacity included three components for success: Legitimization of Al ‐ ternatives, Diverse Networks, and Resource Mobilization. The findings suggest that the theoretical conceptualizations of how rural areas develop and/or thrive have yet to be refined. Many of the findings coincide with Howley’s (1997) ideas that school reform efforts tend to essentialize schooling across contexts, for reasons that do not always reflect local purposes, interests, and/or capacities. Key words: rural education, school policy, school improvement Cette etude porte sur la congruence entre les priorites du Programme d’action en education favorisant la reussite chez les eleves de la maternelle au secondaire 4 (M ‐ S4) du gouvernement du Manitoba et les priorites identifiees par des groupes d’interesses au sein d’une division scolaire rurale de la province et la capacite de cette division de les realiser. Cette capacite comprenait trois volets : la legitimation des autres options possibles, les reseaux diversifies et la mobilisation des ressources. Les resultats semblent indiquer que les conceptualisations theoriques du mode de deve ‐ loppement des regions rurales ont besoin d’etre raffinees. Bon nombre des conclu ‐ sions coincident avec les idees de Howley (1997) selon lesquelles les efforts de reforme scolaire ont tendance a essentialiser l’education pour des raisons qui ne refletent pas toujours les objectifs, les capacites et/ou les interets locaux. Mots cles : education en milieu rural, politiques scolaires, amelioration de l’ecole
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".