MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158988902 · doi:10.5206/eei.v18i3.7628

Transition Services for High School Students with Disabilities:Perspectives of Special Education Teachers

2008· article· en· W2158988902 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Youn-Young Park

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality Education International · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransition (genetics)Special educationGovernment (linguistics)Inclusion (mineral)Qualitative researchPsychologyPedagogyResource (disambiguation)Medical educationMathematics educationSociologyMedicineSocial psychologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study examines the perspectives of special education/resource teachers in Winnipeg on current transition services to prepare high school stu-dents with disabilities for adulthood. The data were collected by individual in-depth interviews with 6 teachers responsible for coordinating transition services. The main themes emerging from these interviews were the roles of schools and teachers; extended period of high school; student and family involvement; func-tional and comprehensive instruction; inclusive placements and experiences; and inter-personnel and interagency collaboration in the transition process in Mani-toba. Interviewees identified barriers to effective transition services including li-mited supports and information for families, teachers, and government workers for transition services; lack of agreement concerning certain roles; delayed adult services; and lack of systematic approaches for student involvement and inclusive placement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExceptionality Education InternationalSame topicDisability Education and EmploymentFrench-language works237,207