MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129786432 · doi:10.1177/016235321003300306

Addressing the Career Development Needs of High-Achieving African American High School Students: Implications for Counselors

2010· article· en· W2129786432 on OpenAlexaff
George P. Parris, Delila Owens, Tyrone Johnson, Sonja Grbevski, Joanne Holbert-Quince

Bibliographic record

Venuejournal for the education of the gifted · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu Grace Healthcare
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedressPsychologyPedagogyFace (sociological concept)PoliticsSituatedCareer counselingPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

African Americans face numerous obstacles in achieving their fullest developmental and career potentials in the current political, social, and economic environment. These barriers have produced, for the most part, workers who have been wage earners as opposed to being self-employed, and blue-collar workers rather than managers or proprietors (Daniel, 2001). This paper proposes solutions that would ensure that African American students who exhibit exceptional talent receive the kind of education to which they are entitled, in preparation for the careers of their choice. In addition to exploring the conditions that led to this underrepresentation, methods to desegregate gifted education programs and redress educational inequalities are analyzed. Specifically, the implications for counselors and teachers, those best situated to bring about positive change, will be 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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuejournal for the education of the giftedSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207