Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five leading researchers of family-school-community partnerships convened a session at the annual convention of the American Educational Research As-sociation in Montreal last month (April, 2005) to throw a lifeline to scholars and practitioners in this field. e age of gold-standard research is upon us, and coin of that specie is rare in family-school-community partnerships. In fact, as the paucity of entries on the Department of Education’s “What Works Clearinghouse ” website indicates, rigorous evaluation of programs, curricula, and methodologies is scarce throughout the realm of education. For the field of school-home relationships, inadequate evidence of the effects of replicable interventions is a catastrophic deficiency; resources for personnel, programs, and evaluation will be drained away. If the research base for effective teaching practices in mathematics is weak, resources for program design and evaluation will be channeled in that direc-tion. But “parent involvement ” is not seen as a core purpose of schooling. Rather than applying the new standards of evidence to more focused program design and greater commitment of resources, parental involvement is likely to be cast aside. e point is not to pit curriculum and instruction against parent involvement, but to realize the importance of both and the special vulnerabil-ity of the latter. So the stakes are high in what Heather Weiss, Joyce Epstein, Kathleen Hoover-Dempsey, Anne Henderson, and William Jeynes proposed in Montreal. eir proposal to reinvigorate the study and practice of school-home rela-tions by giving it greater research standing centers on four sets of questions:
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.018 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".