MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546734369 · doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1251501

Beyond the binary: rethinking teachers’ understandings of and engagement with inclusion

2016· article· en· W2546734369 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Inclusive Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)PoliticsRepresentation (politics)PedagogySociologyDiversity (politics)Identity (music)PsychologySocial psychologyMathematics educationGender studiesPolitical scienceLawAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents research into Canadian elementary and secondary teachers’ understandings of inclusion. The research investigates how a sample of 120 teachers in the southern part of Ontario defined inclusion, and the extent to which they believed an inclusive classroom is an effective way to teach all students. The article draws upon literature into how inclusion is currently defined followed by research into the politics of diversity in inclusive education; the latter signals the socio-political aporia which attends many understandings of inclusion. The study employs Nancy Fraser’s conception of justice as requiring redistribution, recognition, and representation; Fraser’s approach also demands attention to issues of recognition as intimately connected with concerns about social status. The findings reveal teachers’ relative lack of attention to issues of resourcing, but considerable emphasis upon issues of representation. While issues of recognition are largely valued, there is a tendency to reify categories of student identity, rather than challenging concerns about the lack of social status attending such foci. The research reveals a push ‘beyond the binary’ of considering teachers’ practices as either inclusive or exclusive, and how teachers’ engagement with resource provision, recognition of learners, and representation of student needs exists along contingent and intersecting spectra.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.330 · 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