MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3208669023 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14654937.v1

Exclusion in public education : the experiences of parents with young children with special needs

2021· preprint· en· W3208669023 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gurjeet Dhillon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecial needsInclusion (mineral)Variety (cybernetics)Perspective (graphical)Special educationQualitative researchEarly childhood educationSocial justiceMainstreamingPsychologyPublic relationsPedagogyMedical educationDevelopmental psychologySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineSocial psychologySocial scienceCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been widespread interest amongst scholars and activists in researching the concept of inclusion of young children with special needs in early childhood settings and public education. This qualitative research study provides insight into the lives of Canadian parents who have children with special needs in public education. Two interviews were conducted with three parents, all of whom have children with special needs in kindergarten and grade one. Key findings were interpreted from a social justice perspective which indicated that children with special needs are excluded in the public education system in a variety of ways. They do not have opportunities for inclusion with their typically developing peers. Parents become advocates as a result and struggle with accessing appropriate services for their children with special needs. Recommendations are made for implementing change within the education system and areas for future research are identified.

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)0.010
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 score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0230.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFamily and Disability Support Research→French-language works237,207→