Practice and Innovations of Inclusive Education at School
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article has carried out a meta-analysis of the research concerning practice and innovations of inclusive education at school. Investigation of the practice of inclusive education at schools has been intensified since the 1990s, after identifying the need to implement inclusion strategies and concepts at the international level. The first studies of inclusive education (until the 2000s) concerned beliefs and values as a factor, influencing the effectiveness of inclusion, strategies of inclusive education. Investigations after the 2000s have been aimed at more focused subject matter of the research at the local level in different countries: principals’ beliefs, teachers’ self-efficacy, the role of parental support, school ideology, models of inclusion at private schools, the severity of disability as a factor determining teachers’ beliefs concerning inclusion. Various inclusive models have been formed as a practice result of implementing inclusion. Two key effective approaches to integration of inclusion have been highlighted: integrated and differentiated. An integrated approach involves the introduction of innovations in inclusive education in the following elements of the educational system, namely: the concept (strategy) that defines the model, external preconditions and stages of inclusion; a school that defines the internal prerequisites for inclusion; a community. A differentiated approach is used in combination with theintegrated one in order to identify the internal prerequisites for inclusion: values, beliefs and attitudes of teachers, the competence of educators.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it