Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative data from a two-year study provides insight into the benefits and challenges of guiding principles in the gathering of surveillance amongst peers, colleagues, students, parents, teachers, administration and IT staff. Poorly written policies related to violent behaviour evolved across the United States and Canada, due to intial zero tolerance measures introduced in the 1990s, exacerbating racial and ethnic disparities. Data collected during the study indicated surveillance is attributed to five themes: well-being, assessment, policy, security, punitive, FOIPPA compliance, intent, test taking procedures and age are all considerations for the theme of policy. Punitive includes parent reports about teachers, administrative monitoring, students’ behaviour, investigations, and a reactive mindset without active monitoring. Few connections were made between the use of surveillance in schools and learning or assessment of learning. Similarly, few responses indicated the use of surveillance for measuring wellness in schools.
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 | 0.032 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".