MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971767716 · doi:10.1177/0263211x030311007

The Nature and Extent of Student Involvement in Educational Policy-Making in Canadian School Systems

2003· article· en· W1971767716 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. Critchley

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Management & Administration · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsCollege of the North Atlantic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolicy makingPerceptionEducation policySchool districtPolicy analysisPolitical sciencePedagogyPublic relationsSociologyPublic administrationPsychologyHigher education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the role of students in educational policy-making in Canadian school systems? This question was the basis for my doctoral thesis in 1999. A study was conducted at school, school district and departmental levels across Canada. This article provides a brief account of the literature and methodology used and discusses the findings of the study in terms of what provision is made for student involvement in policy-making at each level in education, the nature of that involvement, the mechanisms used for recruiting student involvement in policy-making, the perceptions of stakeholders on student involvement, and the constraints to be overcome in Canadian school systems. It shows that education systems across Canada involve students in policy-making at the department, school district, and school levels, but in an advisory capacity: involvement is restricted to providing policy-makers with information.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0210.016
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational Management & AdministrationSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207