Bibliographic record
Abstract
The case describes the plight of a principal as she attempts to oversee her school’s equity/inclusive mandate. Bernice first realizes the strength of the opposition to inclusion at a staff meeting where a couple of vocal teachers are cheered on by the rest of the staff as they voice their dissatisfaction with her suggestion that students and their parents be included in a decision about next year’s schedule. Bernice is now in the position of having to figure out how to get the equity/inclusion mandate back on track. The case includes four teaching points and exercises. The first exercise explores the issue of acquiring knowledge of the setting while the second addresses the actions that might be taken. The third and fourth activities target the kinds of things that the principal should have done and the arguments that she can use to convince her staff of the value of parental and student involvement in school decisionmaking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.005 |
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".