MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391293626 · doi:10.1177/00169862231222210

Considerations of Academically Talented Students’ Homeschooling Families for Returning to Traditional Schools

2024· article· en· W4391293626 on OpenAlexaff
Michael S. Matthews, Jennifer L. Jolly, Matthew C. Makel, Ahmed Almhawes, Kimberleigh S. Daniels, Julia H. Wojciechowski

Bibliographic record

VenueGifted Child Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Education Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisHome educationPsychologyPopulationPerceptionQualitative researchPreferenceMedical educationDevelopmental psychologyPedagogySociologyMedicineDemographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parent-led, home-based education, or homeschooling, has grown rapidly over recent decades with participation rates increasing more than 100-fold to now nearly one in 25 students nationwide in the United States. However, the research base has not grown correspondingly, and homeschoolers remain understudied. We systematically surveyed a population of homeschooling families ( N = 881 responses) who had reported homeschooling a high-ability student to learn more about their characteristics and perceptions. Specifically, we report a mixed-methods analysis of the survey responses addressing whether and why these parents would or would not consider returning their child to a traditional school setting. Respondents were predominantly mothers who reported a high level of formal education and who were primarily responsible for implementing homeschooling with their child. Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses yielded five main themes: preference, academics, concerns about future educational opportunities, satisfaction, and well-being. Findings both support and extend prior research with this population.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGifted Child QuarterlySame topicDiverse Education Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207