Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter provides an understanding of policy as a contested educational terrain where complex realities, the challenge of diverse interests and constituencies, and distinct perceptions of value, all contribute to decision-making processes that are anything but objective. The chapter discusses policy as a field of thought and action and highlights the deeply political structure of policy work. It provides an account for the challenges of ethics within policy and decision-making. The chapter places assessment as a significant area in policy exploration and an essential contributor to policy work as an aspect of public spheres of influence. The author also submits that educators should approximate themselves to policy and policy thinking (conceptually and strategically) as their voice and contribution is a needed aspect of the process. The author suggests that the notion of framing disposition be advanced as a tool for approaching policy work within education and music 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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.003 |
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".