Conclusion: Developing conceptual understandings of transitions and policy implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Transition requires a multidimensional, interdisciplinary approach for its re‐conceptualisation to bring to the fore systemic and power related concerns affecting marginalised and vulnerable groups. This concluding article examines the special issue articles through a range of perspectives. These include examining transitions through a hermeneutics of suspicion, as a mask to displace focus away from other issues of system blockages and failures, building on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory and Bourdieu’s symbolic violence and cultural capital. A distinctive focus on spatial systems as concentric relational spaces contrasted with fragmented, hierarchical diametric spatial systems is applied to transitions. This goes beyond conventional spatial assumptions of transition as a “bridge”. Temporal assumptions underpinning transitions are explored to challenge one directional approaches, while key issues of marginalised students’ and parents’ voices are highlighted. Intersectionality theory is invoked to examine the interplay between issues of social class, ethnicity, gender in the special issue articles. Building on the special issue articles’ qualitative and quantitative research findings, key policy conclusions for transitions are identified. These include the need to promote relational spaces, increase system capacity, develop flexible nonlinear pathways, address structural segregation issues, and recognise that formal equality principles are insufficient for a culturally responsive approach to transitions. These policy conclusions regarding transitions are relevant for the multiple educational domains explored, ranging from early childhood, primary, postprimary, through to access to university and the labour market. They go beyond typical transition policy responses of induction days, information transfer, staff and interinstitutional communication, and curricular bridging approaches.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".