MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148724981 · doi:10.1177/001440290206800405

A Model for Effective Practice: Dialogic Inquiry with Students who are Deaf

2002· article· en· W2148724981 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

VenueExceptional Children · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialogicPsychologyVariety (cybernetics)PedagogyMathematics educationSubject (documents)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data presented in this study come from the first year of a 4-year research project which has been undertaken to develop a model to describe exemplary communicative practice in the education of students who are deaf. Based on extensive videotaping of teacher-student interactions across a range of ages and subject areas, with participants using a variety of signed communication forms, the nature of this signed classroom discourse is considered with respect to: (a) how it mediates the activity of teaching and learning, and (b) how it encompasses more than the linguistic quality of the signed communication. Dialogic inquiry is proposed as a framework for conceptualizing a model of effective pedagogical practice in the education of learners who are deaf.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.305 · 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