MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999695340 · doi:10.5539/jel.v9n1p87

Determining the Views of School Principals and Guidance Teachers on Inclusive Practices at Anatolian High-Schools

2020· article· en· W2999695340 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tansel YAZICIOĞLU

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)PsychologyPedagogyFocus groupSpecial educationMathematics educationMedical educationSample (material)SociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of students who attend an inclusive school in Turkey has been increasing. This increase in the number of students attending inclusive education makes the inclusive policies more significant and requires that schools of all types and levels should be ready for inclusive practices. This study aims at uncovering the views of school administrators and guidance teachers working at Anatolian high schools concerning the inclusive education. The data of the study were collected through focus group interviews. The study was carried out in Ankara during the school year of 2018–2019 with a sample of school administrators and guidance teachers working at different Anatolian high schools. The findings of the study indicate that there are serious problems in inclusive education practices at Anatolian high schools, the educational setting needed for students with special education needs cannot be provided and teachers do not have necessary experience in inclusive 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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207