MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144618768 · doi:10.1162/edfp_a_00098

Funding Special Education by Total District Enrollment: Advantages, Disadvantages, and Policy Considerations

2013· article· en· W2144618768 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

VenueEducation Finance and Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPasture and Agricultural Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusEquity (law)LegislatureGovernment (linguistics)School districtQuality (philosophy)State policyPolicy analysisEconomic growthFinanceBusinessPublic administrationPublic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsSociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several states and the federal government distribute aid for special education programs based primarily on total district enrollment and a fixed aid amount per student, a method called census funding. In this policy brief, we address three questions to help policy makers, educators, and researchers better understand census-funding models and special education finance policies in general. The first question is, what are the key advantages and disadvantages of census-funding models? The second and third questions relate to aspects of policy implementation, in the event a state legislature should choose to adopt the approach. First, we examine what options are available to mitigate concerns about the equity of funding under a census funding model. Second, we examine what other options exist for helping states and districts to contain special education costs while maintaining a high level of quality.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · 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