MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512462080

CONFLICTING VISIONS, COMPETING EXPECTATIONS: CONTROL AND DE-SKILLING OF EDUCATION - A PERSPECTIVE FROM ONTARIO

2002· article· en· W2512462080 on OpenAlexaffabout
Suzanne Majhanovich

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceVisionExcellenceHumanitiesRestructuringPublic administrationSociologyLawArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT. This article examines recent Ontario Government regulations that have had a far-reaching impact on the working conditions and job expectations of Ontario teachers. The article explores the restructuring initiatives in education that are associated with these regulations. It argues that although the changes have been promoted in the name of excellence and quality enhancement, in fact, they have destabilized the public school system, resulted in de-skilling of teachers, and may ultimately facilitate inroads into education by the private sector. POINTS DE VUE DISCORDANTS, ATTENTES CONTRADICTOIRES: UNE PERSPECTIVE ONTARIENNE SUR LE CONTROLE ET LA DEQUALIFICATION DE L'EDUCATION RESUME. Cet article analyse les recents reglements edictes par le gouvernement de l'Ontario qui ont eu un profond retentissement sur les conditions de travail et les perspectives d'emploi des professeurs de l'Ontario. L'article analyse les initiatives de restructuration dans l'education qui se rattachent a ces reglements. L'auteur affirme que meme si les changements ont ete preconises au nom de l'excellence et de l'amelioration de la qualite, ils ont, en fait, destabilise le reseau scolaire public et entraine la dequalification des professeurs, risquant peut-etre ainsi de faciliter les incursions du secteur prive dans le secteur de l'education.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.376
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGillSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207