IT WAS WRITTEN ALL OVER HIM: CLASSROOM TEACHERS' REFERRAL CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A contextual understanding of general education classroom teachers’ reasons for a student’s referral for special education services provides insight into this initial step in the identification process. The philosophy of social constructivism (Bruner, 1987; Freedman & Combs, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978) provides a backdrop for the underlying practices and beliefs which render the participants in this study to employ the referral criteria that they use. Thirteen general education elementary teachers in a suburban city in southern Ontario were interviewed about their referral criteria for special education services. The results of this study indicated a combination of student characteristics that teachers observed (inattention, lack of comprehension, inability to complete tasks in the allotted time, and poor test performance) and what teachers inferred (e.g., about the way a student looks). The implications of the research for classroom and special education practices in particular are 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it