MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995489669 · doi:10.5206/eei.v29i3.9391

Transitioning Work of Families

2019· article· en· W2995489669 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kathryn Underwood, Elaine B. Frankel, Gillian Parekh, Magdalena Janus

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality Education International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChildren's Rights and Participation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityYork UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Context (archaeology)FallacyWork (physics)ConversationDocumentationEthnographySociologyTransition (genetics)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPedagogySocial psychologyEpistemologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines transitions to school from the standpoint of the work of families. We identify systemic differences constructed through state responses to childhood disability. Based on data from a longitudinal institutional ethnography conducted in Ontario, Canada, these differences illuminate the ways in which ability and disability are constructed in early childhood, and how these constructs are reinforced through procedures, policies, and documentation. Ultimately, we identify five key phenomena in the study: implicit messages of exclusion, the work of families, the supremacy of labels, a fallacy of choice, and the flexibility of institutions to adapt for children. These findings are taken up in the context of broader discourses of school readiness and transition to school with the intention of expanding our conversation about transitions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExceptionality Education InternationalSame topicChildren's Rights and ParticipationFrench-language works237,207