MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High School Teachers’ Representations of Inclusion in Québec

2014· article· en· W2301880067 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philippe Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology and Inclusive Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and FoodUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Mathematics educationPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The representations of high school language, science, and mathematics teachers in Québec were examined with respect to the Politique québécoise de l'adaptation scolaire which favors the inclusion of special needs students.A questionnaire was administered to 240 Québec high school teachers in either regular or special education classes.This questionnaire asked teachers about the policy's objectives, resources, population, actions and effects.The model for individualized learning classes was also considered (special classes in regular schools).The results show that the teachers were generally highly critical of this new education policy, which was not well received.For example, the majority of teachers believed that they received too many resources to the detriment of their other students.A strong majority of the teachers were in favor of limiting the number of special needs students per regular class.However, significant differences were observed between the regular and special education teachers in terms of their responses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.405 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology and Inclusive EducationSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207