MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111618186 · doi:10.22230/ijepl.2010v5n4a237

An Analysis of How the Gender and Race of School Principals Influence Their Perception of Multicultural Education

2010· article· en· W2111618186 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carlos R. McCray, Floyd D. Beachum

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Policy and Leadership · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismMulticultural educationPerceptionCultural pluralismRace (biology)SociologyValue (mathematics)Pluralism (philosophy)Cultural diversityPedagogyPsychologySocial psychologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate secondary school principals’ perceptions of multicultural education in a rural southeastern state. The researchers wanted to ascertain whether or not the race or gender of school principals have a role in how those principals view multicultural education in theory (its theoretical value). For the purpose of this study, multicultural education in theory was defined as the belief that multicultural education is for all students, elevates students’ self-esteem, is embedded in cultural pluralism, and recognizes the social, political, and economic community and societal constructs on students of color (Fernandez, 1996). Three hundred and two secondary school principals were surveyed in a designated southeastern state. A significant difference was discovered with regard to the gender of the school principals and their perceptions of the theoretical value of multicultural 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 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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Education Policy and LeadershipSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207