MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring Indicators of Inclusive Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature

2014· review· en· W1868716415 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Loreman, Chris Forlin, Umesh Sharma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Policies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Set (abstract data type)Order (exchange)Thematic analysisPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsPedagogySociologySocial scienceEngineeringComputer scienceQualitative researchBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter reviews the international literature in order to support ongoing international development work on indicators for measuring inclusive education. Building on previous work in this area, this chapter outlines 13 themes in the international literature that should be considered in the development of a set of indicators for measuring inclusive education and has produced one extra thematic area for consideration.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0220.022
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations82
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Educational Policies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207