MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2612239482

Community Matters:Teachers’ Experiences Working with Black Students Living in Central-Jane

2017· article· en· W2612239482 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amina Hussien

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Systems and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPedagogyGender studiesMathematics educationPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Motivated by the lack of research examining the impact of poverty on the educational achievements of Black students within different communities in Toronto, the purpose of this study is to explore how a sample of Toronto educators in high-poverty schools serving high numbers of Black students are working to foster a sense of community within their classroom. The study was conducted using a qualitative research approach, including a review of the relevant literature, as well as the conduction of semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with three teachers teaching within the Central-Jane area for at least one year. Findings revealed that poverty reportedly impacts the educational achievement of Black students in this neighbourhood and that teachers recognize community building as particularly important for Black students due to the marginalization and racism they experience within society. These findings suggest that teacher behaviour may impact how Black students living in poverty engage with school and the curriculum. Information obtained from this study may be beneficial for teachers and administrators in promoting equity within schools.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0330.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)→Same topicEducation Systems and Policy→French-language works237,207→