Which Factors do Parents of Offspring with Intellectual Disability Experience as Promoting Inclusive Education for their Children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The background of this research is that few studies on inclusive education internationally, use parents as informants. Even fewer emphasize their positive experiences only. From the Norwegian support organisation for people with intellectual disability 14 parent-members were selected and qualitatively interviewed about their positive experiences with inclusive education for their offspring. By means of a discourse analytic approach their statements about constructive factors were benchmarked with twelve formerly identified literature-based factors in order to investigate which of twelve factors were validated by parental experiences, and to detect possible new factors. The general research question illuminated is which factors do parents of offspring with intellectual disability experience as promoting inclusive education for their children? The results are linked to the following four sub-questions: (1) which of the factors, disclosed in current literature, is frequently mentioned by the informants; (2) which new factors are disclosed; (3) which factor is so frequently mentioned that it is considered substantial; and (4) which factors might be combined, and possibly renamed? The results show that the informants contributed all in all with 18 factors. In the discussions it was argued that five factors were interpreted as new, four factors proved to be substantial, that a fifth factor almost gained equal status, while three more factors were considered vital. These eight factors represented the main answer to the research question, and were summarised in metaphoric model, baptized” the school-house of inclusive education”.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".