MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2733435020 · doi:10.14507/er.v24.2217

Review of Assigning blame: The rhetoric of education reform

2017· article· en· W2733435020 on OpenAlex
Julie Chami Lindsay

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of North Texas
KeywordsBlameRhetoricPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assigning Blame: The Rhetoric of Education Reform (2016) emphasizes the role of culpability in five public persuasions since the establishment of the United States Department of Education (ED) in 1979.That year, President Jimmy Carter replaced the Education Office with a national department and, in doing so, school policy gained a new federal significance and demanded more intentional, nationwide deliberation.Tracing the consistent education reforms that followed, Hlavacik identifies blame as the

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.296 · 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