Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simon Burnham’s article on parents’ views of EP work (see page 31) is a welcome addition to our developing awareness in this area of work. Simon’s pilot study presents a snapshot of local parents’ views of the service they have received, and he quite rightly points out that such views are a reflection of the work of a particular educational psychology service (EPS). More research such as his throughout the UK should help to show similarities and differences of EPS parent work in the UK. Simon suggests that the next step would need to be to allow parents to make an informed judgment of the service they have received against specific service quality criteria. So far as I understand it, such service quality criteria are not yet a regular feature of EPS documentation. Service quality criteria for parent work is one of the areas the DECP Working Party on Parent Partnership, Parent Advocacy and Parent Training (here referred to as the Working Party on Parent Partnership for brevity) is studying. Colleagues might be aware that the DECP set up a parent partnership working party last year to find out how current work practices can be enhanced to achieve models for future best practice. Research techniques used involve questionnaires, parent focus groups, consultations with specialists, as well as an EPIT questionnaire asking this year’s trainees about their views on course contents in relation to parent work. We are also collecting a list of resources and references, and have a sizeable number of EPS booklets for parents on their parent work. Their content can reveal much about what services are considering as essential aspects of parent work in an EPS and consequently where there might be areas of underdevelopment. Below we print a copy of the parent partnership brief for the working party.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.042 |
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".