MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1906057754 · doi:10.2304/pfie.2009.7.3.313

Teaching in Full View: GLA as a Mechanism of Power

2009· article· en· W1906057754 on OpenAlexaffabout
Charmaine Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Futures in Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernmentalityAccountabilityAgency (philosophy)Scope (computer science)Identity (music)Government (linguistics)SociologyPower (physics)PedagogyPower structureVisibilityPublic relationsPolicy analysisDiscourse analysisPolitical sciencePublic administrationSocial scienceLawPoliticsLinguisticsComputer scienceEthnography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foucault's concept of governmentality frames a critical discourse analysis of Grade Level of Achievement (GLA) Reporting in Alberta. GLA requires teachers to report to the provincial government a whole number that represents their judgment of each student's achievement in meeting the mandated curricular outcomes in grades 1 to 9 language arts and mathematics. Foucault's notion of governmentality guides the analysis as results are illuminated within three prominent themes: homogeneous, efficient effects of power; visibility; and identity. GLA is of interest and import due to the scope of the project, the unique requirements, not solely test-based, and the myriad of ways the data gathered could be used to influence future directions. GLA is significant, micropolitically, in the way it distributes power by involving the subjects directly. The results of this analysis will serve to provide teachers, administrators and policy makers with a way to reconsider their professional agency and identity within a culture of accountability.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.082
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Futures in EducationSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207