MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7065158186

Development of Special Education Policy in Ontario: A Policy Analysis

2024· other· en· W7065158186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecial educationPolicy analysisEducation policyLegislaturePublic policyStakeholderProduct (mathematics)LegislationSocioeconomic status
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research project investigates the comparative policy discourses of Ontario’s Learning for All (2013) and the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Special Education Plan (2023). By analyzing these documents’ policy themes, the study deepens the understanding of the policy implementation process from the provincial level to the school district level while developing understandings on the historical, political, and socioeconomic contexts that shaped these policies. This research highlights the role of key English Public School policy stakeholders and their advocacy in the special education policies. The research informs the creation of a product which is a practical resource for teachers supporting students with special needs: Teacher Guide for Supporting Students with Special Needs.\nThe research identifies policy themes within the two documents, and includes their definitions, goals, and strategies for special education. Both documents emphasize inclusive education, equity, accessibility, and the importance of differentiated instruction, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and tiered interventions. The alignment of these themes suggests a coherent approach to special education policy between the provincial and the district level in the English public board in Toronto. Additionally, the research explores the influence of historical legislative reforms, political advocacy, and socioeconomic factors on the development and implementation of these policies. The findings note the complex interactions between provincial guidance and local adaptation, highlighting the importance of stakeholder engagement in the policy-making process. This research asserts that for special education policy and practice there is a need for consistent approaches that balance provincial directives and local needs. The product of the Teacher Guide for Supporting Students with Special Needs translates policy principles into practical classroom strategies to promote inclusive education and supporting the diverse needs of students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0140.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations→French-language works237,207→