Conceptualizations of Student Wellness in Alberta Public School Results Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As concern for student wellness permeates into educational objectives, educators require high-quality tools to better understand wellness. A content analysis of a representative sample of the Annual Education Results Reports from Alberta public school divisions revealed patterns in the framing of student wellness through the five wellness domains outlined in the Alberta K–12 Student Wellness Framework (Alberta Education, 2009). Three key discoveries were highlighted: Most wellness language focused on emotional and social wellness, physical wellness was underrepresented, and ambiguity characterized a significant portion of wellness mentions. We applied a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis to our results, which revealed opportunities for improvement regarding how educators speak about, address, and measure issues of student wellness. Creating a new assurance category for student wellness arose as a significant opportunity. Keywords: student wellness, Alberta Education Results Reports, wellness domains, content analysis, wellness framework, SWOT analysis La préoccupation pour le bienêtre des élèves s’infiltrant dans les objectifs éducatifs, les éducateurs ont besoin d'outils de qualité pour mieux comprendre le bienêtre. Une analyse du contenu d'un échantillon représentatif des rapports annuels sur les résultats en éducation des autorités scolaires publiques de l'Alberta a révélé des tendances dans le cadrage du bienêtre des élèves à travers les cinq domaines du bienêtre décrits dans le cadre du bienêtre des élèves de la maternelle à la 12e année de l'Alberta (Alberta Education, 2009). Trois découvertes clés ont été mises en évidence : La plupart des termes relatifs au bienêtre sont axés sur le bienêtre émotionnel et social, le bienêtre physique est sous-représenté et l'ambiguïté caractérise une grande partie des mentions relatives au bienêtre. Nous avons appliqué une analyse des forces, faiblesses, opportunités et menaces (FFOM) à nos résultats, qui a révélé des possibilités d'amélioration dans la façon dont les éducateurs parlent, abordent et mesurent les questions relatives au bienêtre des élèves. La création d'une nouvelle catégorie d'assurance de la qualité pour le bienêtre des élèves est apparue comme une possibilité importante. Mots clés : bienêtre des élèves, rapports annuels sur les résultats en éducation en Alberta, domaines du bienêtre, analyse du contenu, cadre du bienêtre, analyse FFOM
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 | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".