MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108771569 · doi:10.1177/0829573520972556

De-Implementing Inappropriate Accommodations Practices

2020· article· en· W3108771569 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin J. Lovett, Allyson G. Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of School Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Applied psychologyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational accommodations, which alter the manner in which instruction or assessments are administered, are often an appropriate part of a student’s academic program. However, accommodations are frequently overused and have significant limitations. De-implementing inappropriate accommodations is a complex task, but one made easier through a clear understanding of the factors that cause and maintain those accommodations practices. In the present paper, we use the logic of functional behavioral assessment to better understand why evaluators and school staff recommend and provide inappropriate accommodations. We identify problematic background beliefs, specific antecedents, and reinforcing consequences for inappropriate accommodations, before describing several effective strategies for de-implementing those accommodations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.449
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.005 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of School PsychologySame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207