Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes a study that explores efforts to promote democratic practice in a diverse school context. More specifically, it documents administrative endeavors to include members of the school community—teachers, parents and students—in the various school processes by encouraging inclusive communicative practices. The findings of the study indicate that administrators attempt to achieve such ends by establishing relationships with members of their school community that will enable dialogue. They do their best to display their caring natures, vulnerability and senses of humor. They also make themselves visible and approachable, work on greeting people, understanding them and dismantling the hierarchies that exclude people. In the end, however, their efforts fail to foster meaningful democratic and inclusive practices. Administrators in the study end up bypassing democratic options and drawing on the hierarchical power associated with the bureaucratic system in which they work in order to ensure that the school will be able to attract students in the quasi-market system in which it operates.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".