MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066931716 · doi:10.2304/eerj.2014.13.3.257

Inclusion, Integration or Perpetual Exclusion? A Critical Examination of the Decade of Roma Inclusion, 2005–2015

2014· article· en· W2066931716 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

VenueEuropean Educational Research Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRomani and Gypsy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Inclusion–exclusion principlePolitical scienceEconomic growthSocial exclusionSociologyDevelopment economicsSocial scienceEconomicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 12 European countries with significant Roma populations are taking part in the Decade of Roma Inclusion, 2005–2015 (the Decade). Each of these countries developed a Decade Action Plan with the aim of eliminating the marginalization and discrimination of Roma in the areas of housing, health care, employment and education. Nonetheless, as we near the end of the Decade, we find little evidence that disparities between Roma and non-Roma citizens of Europe have decreased. Of all the priorities noted in the Decade, education is seen as the most successful, and that success is minimal at best. This article critically examines why ‘inclusion’ has failed and offers insights into micro and macro contexts and educational goals formulated by the states participating in the Decade.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.363 · 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