MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744093000 · doi:10.5014/ajot.2017.71s1-po5151

How Typically Developing Students Perceive Social Inclusion of Children With Different Abilities: A Scoping Review

2017· review· en· W2744093000 on OpenAlexaff
Brydne Edwards, Debra Cameron, Gillian King, Amy C. McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology of Development and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamInclusion (mineral)PsychologyPedagogyMainstreamingTypically developingMathematics educationSociologyMedical educationDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologySpecial educationMedicinePolitical scienceAutism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Date Presented 3/31/2017 This scoping review synthesizes the available evidence on typically developing students’ perspectives about social inclusion in mainstream schools and recommends classroom inclusion strategies based on these perspectives. Primary Author and Speaker: Brydne Edwards Contributing Authors: Debra Cameron, Gillian King, Amy McPherson

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicPsychology of Development and EducationFrench-language works237,207