MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506569265 · doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12132

A study of inclusive practices

2016· article· en· W2506569265 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Special Educational Needs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumAction researchReflection (computer programming)PsychologyInclusion (mineral)PedagogyAction (physics)Mathematics educationMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research was to examine the experiences of four pre‐service teachers ( PST s) implementing differentiated instruction ( DI ) using action research. During a practicum, the participants recorded data about their use of DI and took part in collaborative reflective discussions with a professor. The data were analysed inductively. It was found that the PST s’ planning was guided by the DI strategies and they regularly incorporated 10 DI strategies in their lessons. When they encountered problems implementing DI , the professor played an important role in by modelling reflection, analysis and problem‐solving during collaborative reflection sessions. The use of action research to investigate their practice increased the PST s’ understanding of the students and how to use DI strategies effectively.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.400 · 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