Bibliographic record
Abstract
This purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical foundation for inclusion in Canadian schools for this Special Issue on Inclusive Education . In response to the need for an interdisciplinary framework, this paper uses an interpretive literature review methodology to construct a framework for educational inclusivity based on four disciplinary perspectives: (a) special education and disability studies, (b) multiculturalism and anti-racist education, (c) gender and women’s education, and (b) queer studies. The constructed framework elucidates four conceptions of inclusivity––normative, integrative, dialogical, and transgressive––positioned on a continuum with each conception representing a different approach to inclusion. Unlike previous models, this framework is not anchored to any one marginalized group; rather, it is intended to represent multiple forms of inclusivity to edify historical, existing, and idealistic educational practices and structures for all forms of difference.
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 | 0.043 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.144 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".