An Evaluation of the Structured Success Program: From the Students' Point of View
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined a special education program from the perspective of students with einotional/behavioral disturbances (E/BD). Participants in the study were enrolled in a Structured Success Program selected from 5 schools in the Saskatoon area. The subjects (N = 17) were male and ranged in age from 11 to 14 years. To examine students' perceptions of their classroom enNironment and self-concept, subjects were administered the Classroom Environment Scale (CES) and the Multidimensional Self-Concept Scale (MSCS). Semi-structured interviews were also conducted to gain insight into the general experiences of students in the program. The mean scores for the current sample on the subscales of the CES and the MSCS were compared to the normative sample. A correlational analysis between the subscales on the CES and the subscales of the MSCS was also performed. Results indicated that the two groups differed significantly on five of the nine subscales on the CES. Self-report ratings on the MSCS between the two groups revealed no differences. Findings from the interview suggested the emergence of two themes among the participants-a general sense of anger and resentment, and social impairments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".