Bibliographic record
Abstract
District School Boards across the Global North (which includes my own school board in Toronto, Canada) implement behaviour management policies that remain situated within discourses and practices of developmental and behavioural psychology. The ABC chart (Antecedent, Behaviour and Consequence) is one key aspect of these behaviour management policies as it aims to document the timing, frequency, intensity and duration of behaviour characterized as problematic or troublesome. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the ABC chart utilized by classroom teachers across K-12 school settings in order to document behaviour. Understood as a socio-cultural artifact and phenomenon of current neoliberal schooling practices, I seek to investigate the role of ABC charts in sustaining practices of conditional inclusion/exclusion for children and youth labeled as ‘problems.’ Using an interpretive methodology situated within critical disability studies and anti-colonial theories and practices, this paper will engage in the application of concepts such as being “out of sync” ( Knight, 2019 : p. 74) and “misfitting” ( Garland-Thomson, 2011 : p. 592) as they intersect with concepts such as “the ability line” ( Broderick and Leonardo, 2016 : p. 66). A key aim of this paper is to question the taken for granted assumptions regarding conceptions of linear time, developmental progress and, achieving the performance of normative behaviour. In examining the implicit power imbalances in practices of documenting behaviour, this paper also invites educators to engage in a critical dialogue in order to facilitate a transformation into more interdependent and socially just teaching and learning practices.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".