MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735561077 · doi:10.1177/0034523717718309

Neoliberalizing race? Diverse youths’ lived experiences of race in school choice

2017· article· en· W2735561077 on OpenAlexaff
Ee‐Seul Yoon

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRace (biology)School choiceNegotiationScholarshipContext (archaeology)SociologyGender studiesRacismDesegregationSpace (punctuation)Racial formation theoryRacial compositionRacializationPolitical scienceGeographySocial sciencePublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical racial studies of school choice elucidate the worsening effects of school choice policy on racial segregation in diversifying cities around the world. This paper contributes to this scholarship by illuminating how a neoliberal education policy of school choice has created racial divisions in new ways in a settler-colonial city. It focuses on how neoliberal education reform of school choice reconfigures and reifies race as a socially and spatially constructed category, fixing the racial identities of youths. I apply critical theories of race, space and youth to examine how diverse youths make sense of, and negotiate, race within and between schools in making “choices” in the local context of a historically racialized urban geography. This paper shows that neoliberal reforms of education do not erase, but rather reconstruct, racial identities and divisions by shedding light on 59 students’ (ages 11–19) accounts of racial exclusion and their constructions of new racial stereotypes in the processes and outcomes of school choice.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in EducationSame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207