MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267128919

Common, distinct and differing perspectives on the education of boys: an analysis of contributions to the 2000 Federal Government Inquiry into the Education of Boys

2009· article· en· W2267128919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNOVA (University of Newcastle, Australia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)PsychologyPolitical scienceSociologyPedagogySocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policy making and practice for gender in schools is undergoing substantial change as the focus has shifted in recent years from girls to boys. It has been argued that social policy makers in all fields need evidence from a variety of sources to make informed decisions about social policy and program implementation. There should be ways of characterising, comparing and contrasting differing perspectives from the public, the media, practitioners and researchers so that their similarities and differences can be laid open for inspection and therefore provide broad, deep and useful information to policy makers and implementers. A relatively new approach to reviewing and synthesising literature has been claimed to have the potential to provide more useful information to social policy makers about 'what works' than traditional methods of reviewing literature. It is an 'argument catalogue' developed by the Canadian Network for Knowledge Utilisation. This paper describes a study examining a sample of submissions to The Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Education and Training Inquiry into the Education of Boys. A comparative analysis of these submissions, which represent views from all interested sectors, including individual parents and teachers, parent bodies, teacher professional bodies and unions, government departments, and researchers, has the potential to significantly inform current discussions of boys' education and attempts to reform gender equity policy. The paper outlines the methodology of developing an argument catalogue which synthesises and codes the arguments contained in a sample of submissions to the Inquiry into the Education of Boys. It offers the preliminary findings from utilising this approach as one way of dealing with the complexities facing research on policy and practice in this highly contested field.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0280.014
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNOVA (University of Newcastle, Australia)Same topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207