MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122174049 · doi:10.1177/001440290206900107

Barriers and Facilitators to Inclusive Education

2002· article· en· W2122174049 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

VenueExceptional Children · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFocus groupIsolation (microbiology)Social isolationInclusion (mineral)Medical educationPedagogyApplied psychologySocial psychologySociologyMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine how inclusive our schools are after 25 years of educational reform, students with disabilities and their parents were asked to identify current barriers and provide suggestions for removing those barriers. Based on a series of focus group meetings, 15 students with mobility limitations (9–15 years) and 12 parents identified four categories of barriers at their schools: (a) the physical environment (e.g., narrow doorways, ramps); (b) intentional attitudinal barriers (e.g., isolation, bullying); (c) unintentional attitudinal barriers (e.g., lack of knowledge, understanding, or awareness); and (d) physical limitations (e.g., difficulty with manual dexterity). Recommendations for promoting accessibility and full participation are provided and discussed in relation to inclusive education efforts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.249 · 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