Dealing with transition in formal meetings of parents and pedagogic staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Talking about a specific child’s development and current issues is an organisationally integral part of the partnership between parents / families and educational institutions with respect to children’s upbringing and education. In Germany, the programmatic emphasis on the equality of all participants in annual formal meetings of parents and pedagogic staff in early childhood education results in a double-bind situation between safeguarding a child’s well-being, the staff’s authority and professionalism, and families’ claims, hopes, knowledge and expectations. By analysing these formal meetings using the ‘documentary method’ (Bohnsack, R. 2017. Praxeologische Wissenssoziologie. Opladen, Toronto: Budrich), we qualitatively and longitudinally reconstruct how staff and parents outline transitions among children with special needs in inclusive settings. The article implements a perspective of ‘doing transitions’ (Wanka, A., M. Rieger-Ladich, B. Stauber, and A. Walther. 2020. “Doing Transitions: Perspektiven und Ziele einer reflexiven Übergangsforschung.” In Reflexive Übergangsforschung. Theoretische Grundlagen und methodologische Herausforderungen, edited by A. Walther, B. Stauber, M. Rieger-Ladich, and A. Wanka, 11–36. Leverkusen: Barbara Budrich) and shows how the reconstructed discourse characteristics of problematisation and de-problematisation work together in terms of safeguarding.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".