Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this presentation I will be using data from an NBIF funded Master's Thesis to explore how inclusion is implemented in New Brunswick secondary science courses. Inclusion in New Brunswick is a highly contentious issue, brought to the forefront by the Provincial Policy 322 - Inclusive Education. Science courses at the high school level are not immune to concerns regarding classroom composition. Ten participating high school science teachers from across rural and urban New Brunswick provided data in the form of interviews, observations of teaching practices, and reflective journals. Using a constant comparative model, three major themes emerged. First, classroom composition is inconsistent between large and small schools, across grade level, and between sections of the same course within the same school. Second, support staff, such as educational assistants (EAs) can often be difficult to access, requiring teachers to lose large amounts of their preparation time for informal meetings. Lastly, inclusion takes the form of students being placed physically in pockets of their classrooms to work with EAs that are avaiable, thereby limiting interaction with their peers. Teachers feel the system that exists is failing their students, but are hopeful for change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".