Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines Ontario Parent Involvement Policy through the use of critical discourse analysis (CDA). The discourse patterns within the policy are analyzed in order to expose any implicit or explicit power relationships. As part of CDA, critical linguistics are applied, to reveal patterns of written form, such as grammar or sentence structure that may reinforce traditional social and/or educational practices which marginalize certain groups of people. The results suggest that the policy document uses both implicit as well as explicit language that disempowers and marginalizes certain groups of parents. Also, there is visible oppression of minority parents as they are inadequately acknowledged or completely unrepresented in the content of the policy. Although, the policy attempts to eliminate power structures by refocusing control over resources onto parent groups and providing vehicles for parent voice empowerment, many parents are excluded as a result of barriers preventing them from being involved in the school system. Barriers faced by parents are exacerbated for minority parents due to challenges associated with past experiences. language, socioeconomic status, supporting the needs of children with exceptionalities, and lack of familiarity with the system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".