MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362475993 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp16349

Streaming And Inclusivity

2023· article· en· W4362475993 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alexa Bartels, Hannah Westrik, Sarah Luo, Emma Gardner, Isabelle Braat

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychology of Development and Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumIndigenousCompetence (human resources)SociologyVariety (cybernetics)Socioeconomic statusPublic relationsPedagogyPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of our collaborative research is to explore the most significant ways in which streaming in high schools inhibit inclusivity. The negative impacts of streaming include: unequal career, educational, and life opportunities for Applied and Academic stream students; (Ontario Educators, 2023); social hierarchies/divisions (Hallan & Ireson, 2006); differences in mental health supports; and inequitable intellectual expectations based on race, gender, and socioeconomic position (Barry et al., 2022). Findings suggest that educators can improve experiences of student inclusivity in high schools by emphasizing the focus on the learning setting and student needs rather than on streams. Teacher Education programs can emphasize cultural competence and differentiated instruction. Governments can continue to dismantle streams by developing new accessible and inclusive curricula and utilizing a variety of accessible assessment approaches to dismantle systemic discrimination of streaming that marginalizes Black, Indigenous, racialized, low-income, disabled, and special needs students.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicPsychology of Development and EducationFrench-language works237,207