MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017119182 · doi:10.1177/0895904810374849

Policies and Programming for Safer Schools: Are “Anti-bullying” Approaches Impeding Education for Peacebuilding?

2010· article· en· W2017119182 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPeace and Human Rights Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeacebuildingContext (archaeology)AutonomySAFERPolitical scienceFacilitationPublic relationsPeace educationSociologyPublic administrationPedagogyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prevailing anti-violence practices in public schools, especially in the context of recently increased emphasis on bullying, often allocate more resources to surveillance and control than to facilitation of healthy relationships or conflict/ peace learning. This policy emphasis increases the risks of marginalization and reduces opportunities for diverse students to develop autonomy and mutual responsibility. This qualitative study examines educators’ contrasting interpretations of various school safety and conflict management initiatives in practice, in peaceful and less peaceful schools serving stressed urban populations, and points out spaces for potential policy shifts and clarifications that could enhance sustainable peacebuilding in schools.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.322 · 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