Links among Social Status, Service Delivery Mode, and Service Delivery Preference in LD, Low-Achieving, and Normally Achieving Elementary-Aged Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relations among social status, current service delivery, and service delivery preferences were examined in 42 students with learning disabilities (LD), 40 low-achieving (LA) and 42 average/high-achieving (A/HA) students in grades 2–4 and 6–7. Service delivery preferences were assessed via forced choice (in-class vs. pullout) and ratings. Participants and classmates completed sociometric rating scales asking how much they liked to work and play with each classmate and how much classmates liked to work and play with them. Most students chose pullout service and rated pullout higher than in-class service. Current service was related to service preference only in the LA group. Only among LD students were self- and peer-rated social status related. Social status was lowest for LD, followed by LA and A/HA children. Among older students, those who preferred pullout service had lower sociometric status than those who preferred in-class service. Implications for educational programming decisions are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".