MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550248211 · doi:10.54195/ijpe.18220

Educational Legislation and Parental Motivation for becoming Involved in Education: A Comparative Analysis between Israel and Quebec-Canada

2023· article· en· W2550248211 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bruria Schaedel, Rollande Deslandes, Yovav Eshet

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal about Parents in Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationLegislatureGeneral partnershipGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceGlobePublic relationsPublic administrationEconomic growthPsychologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing evidence regarding school-family collaboration, as a means to improve school effectiveness, student perseverance and academic achievement, has encouraged many countries around the globe to endorse legislation and policies to facilitate and augment greater school-family levels of participation. However, in previous studies the macro educational and legislative environments were not correlated to the motivational inclinations of parents. Based on a study recently conducted in Israel, this comparative analysis underlines the evolution of legislation and government policies in Israel and Québec-Canada. This analysis will present the similarities and differences between the key findings highlighted in the two educational systems. We will explore the extent to which state legislative policies motivate parental partnership in schools and at home. We will suggest changes that should be implemented in both countries, within schools and at regional levels. This will call for increased focus on teacher-parent cooperation to foster bonds between schools and parents. Finally, we will recommend urgently-required reforms in the Israeli legislation system to advance parental involvement in education and possibly mitigate currently existing achievement gaps

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal about Parents in EducationSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207