MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2919491668 · doi:10.7202/1058410ar

ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE PRINCIPLES AND INTERVENTIONS: AN OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2019· article· en· W2919491668 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l éducation de McGill · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Discipline and Inequality
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPunitive damagesDisciplinePsychological interventionEmpowermentSociologyPsychologyPublic relationsPedagogyPolitical scienceSocial scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing evidence shows that punitive discipline is ineffective and detrimental. Using empowerment theory and the opportunity-to-learn conceptual framework, this literature review seeks to broaden school personnel’s knowledge of alternative discipline interventions. Searching ERIC and JSTOR databases, we looked for English language, North American literature published between 1996 and 2016 that discussed alternative individual and school-wide disciplinary approaches. The literature we found indicates that punitive measures are counter-productive; that several alternative disciplinary models share common principles; and that studies point to favourable outcomes of some alternative school discipline models. While the transition towards alternative discipline may require additional resources and years of adjustment, a healthier school climate can foster the empowerment and academic achievement of marginalized students.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.536
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.009 · 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