MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1579281521 · doi:10.22230/ijepl.2008v3n8a146

Trends in Technology Planning and Funding in Florida K-12 Schools

2008· article· en· W1579281521 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Albert D. Ritzhaupt, Tina N. Hohlfeld, Ann E. Barron

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Policy and Leadership · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedBusinessSurvey researchPolitical sciencePublic relationsMedical educationEconomic growthSociologySocioeconomicsEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This empirical research investigates trends in technology planning and funding in Florida’s K–12 public schools between the 2003–04 and 2005–06 academic years. Survey items that focused on funding and planning issues on Florida’s statewide school technology integration survey were analyzed using logistic models. Results indicate a significant increase in the number of schools revising their technology plans on a regular basis; a significant increase in the frequency with which Florida’s K–12 public schools are seeking funding for technology-related initiatives; a significant increase in parent, administrator, teacher, and student involvement in the technology planning process; and a significant decline in adequate funding for software and hardware needs. In addition, schools with low proportions of economically disadvantaged students sought and were awarded significantly more funds from donations and federal and state grants. Implications for educational leadership and policy are provided.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.118 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education Policy and LeadershipSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207