MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051788526 · doi:10.1177/00222194050380020701

Learning Disabilities and the New Reductionism

2005· letter· en· W2051788526 on OpenAlex
Paul Neufeld, Maureen Hoskyn

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

VenueJournal of Learning Disabilities · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentralityScholarshipDiscourse analysisLearning disabilityPsychologyReductionismSociologyPedagogyDevelopmental psychologyEpistemologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to respond to Reid and Valle's article "The Discursive Practice of LD: Implications for Instruction and Parent-School Relations" in this issue. Our response to the discursive analysis is organized around two major themes: (a) the issue of balance in the scholarship on learning disabilities (LD) and (b) the centrality of the discourse of general education to the discourse of LD. Following our response to the discursive analysis, we comment on the implications for instruction and parent-school relations drawn by Reid and Valle. Highlighted in this section is the disconnect between the macro-level findings from the discursive analysis and the micro-level orientation of their "sociopolitical vision" for instruction and parent-school relations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.278 · 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