MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394573385 · doi:10.26689/jcer.v8i3.6448

Inclusive Education in the Context of Ethnocultural Diversity: Understanding the Process of Exclusion to Act in the School — A Secondary Publication

2024· article· en· W4394573385 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Odile Magnan, Justine Gosselin-Gagné, Geneviève Audet, Xavier Conus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Educational Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)Context (archaeology)SociologyPedagogyPolitical sciencePsychologyGeographyAnthropologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reveals that the implementation of inclusive education is an unfinished challenge, both within the system and for individual self-improvement. This process of changing practices, by continually questioning the school’s responsibility for the (re)production of inequalities, exclusion, and unequal social relations, is riddled with obstacles, unpredictable situations, and strong emotions. In particular, the researchers point out that many systemic mechanisms of school culture contribute to replicating and reifying hierarchical school experiences and exacerbating processes of institutional discrimination against immigrant backgrounds and/or racialized students. The empirical research presented also highlights the school staff’s deficit thinking toward immigrant students and their parents. The results show that staff tend to use linguistic and cultural gaps between students and the school system to explain academic failure. Be that as it may, the researchers as well as the school actors and students interviewed in this paper suggest multiple ways to improve inclusion in the school context, stressing the importance of giving voice to the various actors in order to move toward institutional transformation.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary Educational ResearchSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207