MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752399348

A Tale of Two Policies: The Case of School Discipline in an Ontario School Board

2017· article· en· W2752399348 on OpenAlex

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Discipline and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityDiscretionVaguenessFlexibility (engineering)Policy analysisPedagogyPolitical scienceSchool choiceSociologyPublic relationsPublic administrationLawManagementEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines how staff working for one Ontario school board perceive two distinct approaches to school discipline policy: the Safe Schools Act (Bill 81) and Progressive Discipline and School Safety (Bill 212). The more centrally controlled and rigid Safe Schools Act was criticized by interviewees and cited for human rights violations. However, the inherent flexibility and vagueness of the Progressive Discipline policy that replaced it was seen to lead to inconsistent policy implementation and unequal outcomes for students. This paper considers the broader implications of policies that are “tightly coupled” or “loosely coupled” in terms of teachers’ professional discretion, accountability, and student outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.377 · 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