MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386312890 · doi:10.1515/9781772126693-004

2 Making Diversity in Rural Areas Visible: A Changing Perspective for Rural Schools in Québec

2023· book-chapter· en· W4386312890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Corina Borri-Anadòn

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Press eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Practices and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Diversity (politics)GeographySociologyAnthropologyArtVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

project "Keys for a Better Understanding of the Ethnocultural, Religious, and Linguistic Diversity in Schools." 1 The project and its typology bring to the forefront the different forms of diversity that exist within and across the 17 administrative regions of Québec. 2 Research on ethnocultural, religious, and linguistic diversity in Québec too often focuses only on the province's metropolitan regions-Montréal in particular-forgetting how, or even that, diversity manifests across the province.In this way, the diversity of metropolitan Québec is overvisibilized, while the diversity of nonmetropolitan Québec is invisibilized.The typology of the "Keys for a Better Understanding" project is worthwhile in that it investigates diversity in all of Québec's administrative regions, across the rural-urban spectrum.The "Keys for a Better Understanding" project is focused on diversity in the context of education.The typology reported here thus focuses on student-specific indicators of diversity, though it also looks at some indicators that are applicable to many contexts in Québec society.Because of its school-centred focus, however, we see this typology as a valuable tool in encouraging schools to take stock of their local diversity profiles as they design and deliver educational programs.It contributes to research

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta Press eBooksSame topicEducational Practices and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207