A History of International Engagement in the Council for Exceptional Children Since 1980. Part 1: Organizational Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Is the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), arguably the largest professional organization in exceptional education in the world, international or not? What does it mean to be international? An integrative literature review of primary sources of CEC news articles, reports of initiatives and workgroups, and columns in CEC publications that provided records of the Council’s internationally related thinking and activities involving countries outside the United States and Canada was conducted to reconceptualize CEC’s international nature since 1980. In this article, we report the findings from these sources that provide evidence of international aspirations and activities at times for six organizational components of CEC—mission and vision, policy, units, committees, work groups, and membership. There were instances of international thinking and efforts in these components. Both are necessary for meaningful international engagement, as neither is sufficient on its own. Our results suggest, though, that each may have been wanting. Recommendations are provided on how CEC can increase its global engagement through these elements.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".