Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each spring teachers throughout Canada are required to administer a series of provinciallymandated tests to the students in their classes. Approximately six months later the results are made available to the public. It is now common practice for the press the report the results, to rank the schools according to the results, and to invite the public to engage in a school-by-school comparison of the rankings. It is also common practice for the press, in commenting on the poor performances displayed by certain schools, to place the blame for these performances largely, if not solely, on the schools themselves. Our concern over this practice is with the failure on the part of the press to acknowledge the many other factors aside from schooling that are known to influence test performance. These include, but are not limited to, family stability, parental involvement and expectations for student success in school, early and ongoing home stimulation, and student motivation, student absenteeism, as well as student capacity for learning. Because students are not randomly assigned to schools and because schools have little or no control over the majority of these factors, any attempt to place the blame for poor test performance on the schools alone without giving proper consideration to each of these other factors is problematic at best and misleading at worst. Hence, by taking such a narrow position when dealing with an issue as complex as the cause of students' test performances, we believe the public is being misinformed on a matter that is extremely important to the operation of schools and therefore to the education and well being of children. Our greatest concern, however, is over the possibility that this singular emphasis on the schools as the cause of students' test performances could generate considerable harm by placing unwarranted pressure on teachers, administrators, and ultimately on the students themselves to increase test scores or risk losing status within the community. Indeed, there is growing evidence that such harm is already occurring in the United States from similar comments in the US press concerning the poor performance of certain schools on the state-mandated tests. With the hope of preventing similar situations from occurring in Canada, and in line with the view expressed by the Ontario Education Quality and Accountability Office, which is responsible for the development and scoring of the Ontario exams, it is our position that it is improper for the press to invite the public to compare schools based solely on the outcome of the mandated test results. We also recommend that in any future articles that deal with the results, in order to avoid misleading the public, the press should ensure that the public is fully informed of the various factors, in addition to schooling, that are likely to account for differences that may exist among 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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.415 | 0.364 |
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".