Policy and Practice: Acquired Brain Injury in Canadian Educational Systems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within Canada, the needs of students with exceptionalities are addressed through a variety of policies and procedures that allow those students to receive effective and meaningful education. However, in most provinces and territories these policies are serving more as barriers than supports in addressing the needs of students with acquired brain injuries (ABI). Within Canada, only two provinces acknowledge ABI as an exceptionality in any significant way. For the most part, ABI is under-recognized and often poorly responded to in Canada’s educational systems. The issues associated with the problematic delivery of services to students with ABI include: the lack of federal guidelines as to the definition of “exceptionality”, the lack of awareness of ABI as an exceptionality requiring accommodation, the connection between the categorization of exceptionalities and funding, and the lack of training and support for educators. The ramifications of these issues and the changes in educational policy needed to adequately address these issues are discussed with reference to children’s right to education.
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 | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".