A critical discourse analysis of Manitoba’s safe schools documentation and implications for students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Students who have been labeled as exhibiting behaviour difficulties in the school system have some of the worst academic and social outcomes of any student group. In most Canadian provinces, responses to student behaviour and misbehavior are legislated through Safe Schools policies, directives, guidelines and curriculum support documents, which guide school districts and individual schools in responding to student behaviour and misbehavior. This project aims to conduct a critical discourse analysis of Manitoba’s Safe and Caring Schools documentation in order to consider the ways in which provincial policy directives and guidelines construct children and their behaviours and subsequently to consider how to better support students, particularly those who tend to be marginalized by existing school based responses to student behaviour. By deconstructing the ways in which children, behaviours, and school responses are constructed in policy documents, the project aims to make recommendations for policy-makers and educators to better support students, particularly those who are most marginalized by/within the school system.
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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".