MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Teachers’ critical reflection: what are the practices for social justice in education?

2021· article· en· W4205574197 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rola Koubeissy, Geneviève Audet

Bibliographic record

VenueL’éducation en débats analyse comparée · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Practices and Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCONTESTPerceptionContext (archaeology)SociologyMulticulturalismPedagogyCritical reflectionClass (philosophy)RefugeeImmigrationPower (physics)Social justicePsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores teachers’ participation in the school’s social justice system through the lens of the critical multicultural approach (May & Sleeter, 2010; May, 2000; 2003). Based on a research project about reconstruction and the theorization of teachers’ stories of practice (Desgagné, 2005) in a multiethnic context, data was collected from teachers in highly multiethnic primary schools in Québec. They were asked to narrate a story about a problem or an event with an immigrant or refugee student in their class. Four of these stories have been selected for this article. Our aim was to analyze the teachers’ cultural responses and their perception of their roles in supporting their students. Our analysis shows that although these teachers tend to make changes to their students’ reality, they cannot escape or contest “alone” the norms of an academic, societal and political system that governs its power relationships and privileges, its dominant norms and values.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0190.098
Scholarly communication0.0290.027
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL’éducation en débats analyse comparéeSame topicEducational Practices and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207