Alternative Education Provision at Key Stage 4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disaffection, lack of interest, truancy and under-achievement are all too common a reaction to the curriculum in years 10 and 11. But many schools across England and Wales have chosen to offer at least some of their students something a little different during their last year or two of compulsory education. For example, as well as attending school for part of the time, some students go to further education college, gain experience on a long-term work placement, learn new skills with a training organisation or get involved in personal-development activities run by youth workers. In the summer term of 1998, NFER carried out a survey of schools in a sample of LEAs, asking them what alternative curriculum programmes they used for some students at key stage 4. Just under a quarter of the schools contacted told us about the schemes they had in place. During autumn term 1998, representatives from 75 of the organisations working with schools were also interviewed about their perspectives on these programmes. These partner organisations included LEAs, LEA support services, youth work, community colleges, other schools, employers, further education colleges, training and enterprise councils, training organisations, and special projects run in particular geographic areas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".