Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growth of the internet and social media, students are increasingly using online platforms as public forums of communication. This communication occasionally impacts the school environment which has created a new realm of regulation for school authorities. Traditionally, the authority of school administrators’ stopped at the school yard gates. However, the age of social media has prompted reforms in legislation and brought forth novel case law. Ontario’s Education Act currently sets out the test to determine when school administrators can exercise their authority off school grounds: in circumstances “where engaging in the activity will have an impact on the school climate.”[1] In the US, the landmark Tinker case set out a different test: school administrators may only exercise their authority against student speech when the speech causes a “substantial disruption or material interference with school activities.”[2] This standard was affirmed to apply to off-campus speech in the Mahanoy case.[3] The standard in the US is markedly elevated compared to Ontario’s, requiring a more substantial impact on the school climate. This difference raises two important questions: how can this difference be explained and is one standard more fitting than the other? [1] Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, s. 306(1) [rep & sub. 2007, c. 14, s. 4; am. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 1, s. 30(3), (4); 2020, c. 18, Sched. 5, s. 8]. (emphasis added) [2] Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503. (emphasis added) [3] Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 594 U.S. 180.
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 | 0.070 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".