Conceptions of and experiences with inclusion for a cohort of caregivers of secondary students with intellectual and multiple disabilities in an Ontario high school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary purpose of this qualitative study is to examine the conceptions of and experiences \nwith inclusion of students with intellectual and multiple disabilities by a cohort of participants from \none Ontario high school? The data was collected and analyzed via qualitative semi-structured \ninterviews. Participants were selected via purposive samplings and included four female caregivers \nand one male caregiver. \nThe findings of this study provide insight into the participants' opinions about inclusion, \nfocussing on what inclusion means to them Also identified are their points of view regarding politics, \ngoals, friendship, and the elimination of special education classrooms and how these relate to \ninclusion. As well, the participants identified elements necessary for effective inclusive education. \nAccording to the participants, the term inclusion refers to educating students with disabilities \ntogether with students without disabilities. Politically, inclusion is seen as being cost effective. The \nparticipants do not believe that inclusion facilitates friendships between students with and without \ndisabilities. True friendships develop only between students with disabilities. The participants' goals \nfor inclusion are student orientated. They oppose foil inclusion because students with disabilities \nultimately forego many benefits. Effective collaborative planning invites the parents, guardians, and \nsupport personnel's input, and helps to place students with disabilities appropriately. Negative \nramifications for parents, guardians, and support personnel, and students with and without disabilities \nare a result of inappropriate inclusive educational placements. Positive attitudes and proper support \nfor all individuals involved in the inclusion process are necessary for inclusion to be successful.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".