MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789460720 · doi:10.1080/13632434.2018.1439466

Leading an examination of beliefs and assumptions about parents

2018· article· en· W2789460720 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Leadership and Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobePedagogyStudent engagementPsychologyCommunity engagementSociologyPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A body of literature on parent engagement has emerged over the past five decades (Mapp, K. 2013. Partners in Education: A Dual Capacity-Building Framework for Family-School Partnerships. Washington, DC: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory). Regardless of this extensive research evidence and its promise for improved student outcomes, there are only ‘random acts of parent engagement’ (Weiss, H. B., Lopez, E. L. and Rosenberg, H. 2010. Beyond Random Acts: Family, School, and Community Engagement as an Integral Part of Education Reform. Boston, MA: Harvard Family Research Project) occurring in schools across the globe. Why has the systematic engagement of parents not become integral to all schools? We believe an underemphasised and critical piece in the work to engage parents is leadership to facilitate school staffs’ deep and honest examination of their beliefs about parents, and the place and voice of parents in teaching and learning.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.240 · 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