Key factors for outdoor teaching practices in special education settings to support students with learning difficulties
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outdoor teaching offers many benefits for students’ learning and well-being. In this regard, studies have shown that pedagogical interventions conducted outdoors have positive impacts on cognitive, emotional, social, and physical aspects (Fiennes et al. 2015; Rickinson et al. 2004). Few studies explore the use of outdoor teaching in a more specialized teaching environment, such as that of special education. However, students with learning difficulties who receive special education services could particularly benefit from the advantages of the outdoor environment (). This collaborative research project, conducted in Québec (Canada), aims to identify the key factors supporting the integration of outdoor teaching practices in special education settings. To achieve this, four group interviews were conducted with seven special education teachers working with students with learning difficulties in primary and secondary schools. The results highlight favorable conditions from a systemic perspective.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it