THE INCLUSION PROCESS IN THE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this qualitative study conducted with 11 Latin American migrant children and adolescents who are students in the basic education network in the city of Rio de Janeiro, our aim is to understand how the group develops inclusion strategies within the school environment. We hereby seek to understand the broader insights that these strategies may provide regarding the migration experience of this community in Brazil. Initially, we discuss the distinction between including and integrating migrants. Subsequently, we propose an intercultural methodology, child-centered approach and grounded on Socio-Historical Psychology, for analyzing such phenomenon. Finally, we identify and discuss three inclusion strategies that the participants mobilize in their interaction with peers, teachers, and the Brazilian social context: marking of differences, attempting to blend into the group, and demanding equity. These strategies provide us with indications of their initial impressions in Brazil, challenges of their inclusion in the school, and the challenges faced when learning Portuguese.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it