MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046363746 · doi:10.1177/0263211x000284002

Management System Design for a Learner Centered School

2000· article· en· W2046363746 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 Management & Administration · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Methods and Practices
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationChecklistKnowledge managementProcess (computing)Process managementManagement systemComputer scienceDecision support systemQualitative researchMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyEngineeringSociologyOperations managementArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines how a learner centred school defines and specifies its management decision support system, and how it implements the system on an ongoing basis. A qualitative single case study was designed to investigate and understand both the substance and process of this management system. A checklist of criteria was used in classroom observations to first validate the purposefully selected Montessori school as learner centred. Additionally, semi-structured interviews and school documentation review were used in the actual management system investigation. The findings indicate a tightly integrated management system comprised of few decision support elements, each clearly focused on the student. These elements map into a model comprised of distinct connections and linkages, where the teaching and learning processes represent the core element and drive and define the remaining system elements. Relationships, resources and particular organizational arrangements were identified as factors critical to successful implementation of this decision support system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.332 · 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