MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2367319143

A Survey of Preschool Educators' Ideas about Inclusive Education

2006· article· en· W2367319143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly childhood education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Special educationPerceptionPsychologySpecial needsPedagogyMainstreamingClass (philosophy)Medical educationMathematics educationMedicineSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author investigated 115 Shanghai preschool educators about including special children in regular class (inclusive education) through questionnaires and interviews. The results show that educators in semi-inclusive kindergartens hold most positive attitude towards inclusive education but they tend to hold lower opinion about special children than those in special kindergartens while educators in non-inclusive kindergartens are more likely to accept inclusive education and express more urgent need of professional knowledge and skills compared with those in full-inclusive ones. Among educators of different positions, administrators hold the positive perception to inclusion while care-givers are more apt to accept inclusion and more confident to care special children than teachers. The study indicates that knowledge of inclusion is of great importance for further development of preschool special education in Shanghai.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly childhood educationSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207