Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the inclusion-related beliefs and perceived needs of primary teachers in Australia, and proposes ways that school psychologists can help meet these needs. Forced-choice and open-ended survey questions provided quantitative and qualitative data from 162 primary school teachers who were in the midst of implementing an inclusive education program in a large urban/suburban education district in Western Australia. Survey questions focused on beliefs about inclusion, confidence about implementing inclusive practices and attitudes about current and necessary support structures. The majority of teachers perceive benefits (85 percent) as well as drawbacks (95 percent) to teaching in inclusive classrooms. Only 10 percent of teachers noted school psychologists as part of structures that successfully support inclusive practices and only 4 percent of teachers requested additional school psychology time as a support structure needed to boost confidence to teach more inclusively. Qualitative data showed that teachers want more training in specific disabilities as well as additional aide time. We conclude that school psychologists need to be more proactive and involved in providing training, disseminating research, developing behaviour and learning plans and advocating for teachers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it