Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines discourses and practices associated with designating some children and youth as being of academic and social failure in and out of school. To respond effectively to learners requires a refocusing of policy and research, an informed political and administrative will, effective use of sufficient resources, and systematic coordination of existing knowledge bases. We explore effective strategies based on a social justice vision of schooling and child development, arguing for an integrated understanding of and approach to child and youth-related activities and initiatives across school, community, socio-structural, and public policy spheres. L'article traite des discours et des pratiques associes au fait de designer certains enfants et jeunes comme des personnes > a l'ecole et dans la societe. Si l'on veut repondre aux besoins des apprenants >, il faut une reorientation des politiques et des recherches, une volonte politique eclairee, des ressources suffisantes judicieusement utilisees et une coordination systematique des bases de connaissances existantes. Les auteurs explorent des strategies efficaces fondees sur une vision de l'education et du developpement de l'enfant axee sur la justice sociale. Ils pronent une approche integree des activites et des initiatives a l'ecole, dans la collectivite, dans les spheres sociostructurelles et en matiere de politiques publiques. Discourses related to notions of children and youth considered to be atrisk or whose resiliency enables them to avoid risk have gained widespread currency in the educational lexicon. Application of these concepts by educators and policy-makers has provided some children and youth (whom education systems previously have forgotten, marginalized, or misrepresented) with useful services, resources, and opportunities to succeed. Nonetheless, as with many educational ideologies, an uncritical adoption of practices associated with at-risk discourses may also contain potential to reinforce the problems that they seek to address or to produce new dangers. In this article, we investigate questions related to why discourses of children and youth at risk have been so popular, how they have been
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.003 |
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".