Bibliographic record
Abstract
At present, over 10% of students who attend public schools in British Columbia are identified as having a special need and require an Individual Education Plan (IEP). This plan is created or revised in yearly meetings in which parents, teachers, and others decide on individualized goals, adaptations, modifications, support, and measures for tracking achievement, all related to the student’s educational planning. Although students are encouraged to participate in these meetings, little is known about what students’ involvement looks like. Supporting students’ autonomy has several positive outcomes including increased academic motivation and academic self-efficacy. When students are given the training and opportunity to take on roles that go beyond passive participation during the IEP process, benefits including increased academic performance, motivation for learning, and the development of self-determination skills can result. However, at present, research surrounding IEP participation has only been conducted in the US and very little research has directly studied students’ perceptions of their involvement. Employing Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, in this study, semi-structured interviews were used to explore student perspectives on their participation in the IEP process and how students with learning disabilities felt they could become better involved in their educational planning. Themes that emerged related to the students’ perceptions of their involvement included involvement, lack of involvement, advocacy and perceptions regarding the purpose of the IEP and the IEP meeting. Themes regarding how the students thought other students could become better involved in their meetings included acknowledgement of successes, collaboration, honesty and acceptance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".