Different Numbers, Different Stories: Problematizing "Gaps" in Ontario and the TDSB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an urban district reform for equity, the Model Schools for Inner Cities (MSIC) Program in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) was founded as a response to inequities in the city and opportunity gaps among groups of students. This study critically explores the equity discourses among various stakeholders in the MSIC Program between 2004-14, with a specific focus on how opportunity gaps are conceptualized. Critical discourse analysis was used with attention to how these discourses interacted within and between two sets of sixteen participant interviews and the analysis of twelve documents, as well as how the discourses changed over time. A spectrum of thinking emerged from the data on opportunity gap discourses, with Affirmative Discourses on the one hand, and transformative discourses on the other and included four components. Three of the four components were adapted from the work of Fraser’s (2005) tripartite theory of justice (Redistribution, Recognition and Representation). The fourth component emerged from the data and will be referred to as Re-education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".