MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311469189 · doi:10.1080/09585176.2016.1140061

Tensions and fissures: the politics of standardised testing and accountability in Ontario, 1995–2015

2016· article· en· W2311469189 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Curriculum Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Policies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityPoliticsPublic administrationPolitical scienceQuality (philosophy)SociologyLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT While Ontario has received international accolades for its enactment of province‐wide standardised testing upon the formation of the Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO), a closer look at provincial assessments over a 20‐year span reveals successes as well as systemic tensions and fissures. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it offers a socio‐historical account of EQAO policy and programme enactment. Second, it offers insight into the less‐publicised politics of enactment within systems with respect to principles and methods of accountability and their link to instructional systems. Data and findings from various sources shed light on the realities of struggles, tensions in macro‐political consensus and dissensus among various stakeholders, and the micro‐politics at the school and district levels.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.332
Teacher spread0.300 · 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