MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106420725 · doi:10.22230/ijepl.2014v9n2a483

Punishment in School: The Role of School Security Measures

2014· article· en· W2106420725 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas J. Mowen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Policy and Leadership · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Discipline and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerSuspension (topology)Punishment (psychology)PsychologyDemographic economicsCriminologySocial psychologyDemographyPolitical scienceSociologyEconomicsLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although investigation of school security measures and their relationships to various outcomes including school crime rates (Gottfredson, 2001), perpetuation of social inequality (Ferguson, 2001; Nolan, 2011; Welch & Payne, 2010), and the impact on childhood experiences has seen significant growth within the last 20 years (Newman, 2004; Kupchik, 2010), few studies have sought to explore the impacts of these measures on suspension rates. Using data from the Educational Longitudinal Study (2002), I explore the relationship between security measures and in-school, out-of-school, and overall suspension rates. Results indicate schools with a security officer experience higher rates of in-school suspensions but have no difference in rates of out-of-school or overall suspensions compared to schools without a security officer. No other measure of security was related to higher suspension rates. As prior literature suggests, schools with greater proportions of black students experienced significantly higher rates of all suspension types. Finally, different types of parental involvement correlated with both higher and lower suspension rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education Policy and LeadershipSame topicEducation Discipline and InequalityFrench-language works237,207