Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modifying the curriculum is a common practice used to support students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs). Up to 15% of students in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) have curriculum modifications by the time they reach Grade 8. Yet, despite their frequent use, the efficacy of this long-standing practice has rarely been studied. Research from Author (2022) suggests that racialized students are disproportionately overrepresented in this practice. Furthermore, their research suggests that there are negative long-term impacts associated with this practice. This literature review queries what is known about curriculum modifications. Findings reveal two significant issues with the terminology used in the existing literature. Additionally, the limited research available centres on only one exceptionality group (students with significant intellectual disabilities). These findings lay a foundation for future research on curriculum modifications—an area that warrants urgent attention from the anti-oppression movement within special education.
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 | 0.025 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
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".