Communities In Schools: A Newfoundland School and Community Outreach in Need of Stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communities In Schools (CIS) was introduced to Cormack Trail School District in 1991. Using a whole-school philosophy it offers non-targeted programming to all children through the building of community-based partnerships and community involvement. The purpose of this article is to explore what participants said about their work with CIS: where they worked, what they did, what they liked about their work, what they disliked, their perceptions of barriers and supports, and their suggestions for positive growth. The field texts derive from three main sources: interviews with four CIS workers and one principal; documents and reports used as part of the reporting mechanism required by funding agencies and partners for both CIS and its parent organization (Community Education Networks) and minutes from principals’ meetings; and personal correspondence with the Director of Community Education Networks and the District Coordinator for Communities In Schools. Results indicate that true community involvement in schools can exist and is of benefit to the education of children, but that challenges related to time frames, salaries, and employees’ roles and expectations tied to government agency requirements need to be taken into consideration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".