MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175258044

The Results and Implications of Fundraising in Elementary Public Schools: Interviews with Ontario Principals

2012· dissertation· en· W2175258044 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ioanna Vana Pistiolis

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Education Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryPolitical scienceDemocracyStudent achievementPublic relationsPublic administrationPedagogySociologyAcademic achievementPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing pressure to fundraise at the school level in Ontario is a direct result of funding cuts by the Ministry of Education. The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze the kinds of different fundraising strategies principals use in select elementary public schools in a southern Ontario large city and to determine the positive and negative results of fundraising. Principals of eight elementary schools were interviewed from high and low fundraising schools. Five included school observation tours. The findings show a positive correlation between student achievement and fundraised amounts and utilization, but that the benefits of fundraising only apply to a small number of students. The findings also show that an equal educational opportunity is not being provided to all students, and that moral, civic and democratic values are being eroded. This study highlights the need for Ontario’s Ministry of Education to fully fund public 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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicDiverse Education Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207