A scoping review of the research related to special education placement decisions in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This scoping review provides an overview of the research related to educational placement decisions for students with special educational needs over a 20‐year period in Canada. While educational placement has received considerable research attention in countries such as the United States, few studies have focused on the nature of the decision‐making process in the Canadian context. Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews, the study characteristics, research methods and research foci were identified in the included articles as well as the stakeholders and students represented in the research. While diverse stakeholders were represented, including students with special educational needs themselves, few studies featured multiple stakeholders. Themes are discussed relative to the research context, such as special education systems and structures and teacher training to support inclusive practice. The limitations and implications for future research are also discussed relative to the findings from the review.
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 | 0.027 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.047 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".