20 år av barns delaktighet i kanadensiska inlärningsmiljöer: En scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation has long become a catchall term reflective of a system where children with special educational needs (SEN) are merely enrolled in mainstream classes and not treated as individuals with the legal right to the same outcomes as their peers. The time gap from the inception of international rights-based policies indicates an urgent need to re-map the literature on this concept. The extent in which children with SEN in Canada participate in learning environments and the factors that prompt said participation is essential in identifying and closing gaps in policy, practice and research. This scoping review aimed to deliver an updated status on the concept of participation for children in this region. Through the analysis of 17 research articles published between 2005-2025, this study unearthed the following themes: participation is physical, participation is environment dependant, participation is social, and participation is individual. The findings back hypotheses previously posited in theoretical frameworks and depict a gradual shift from older belief systems to an increased use of child-centred qualitative methods. Yet, many study designs on children’s experiences with participation in learning environments remain quantitative and heavily influenced by adults. Data from five geographic regions were missing during the studied time period. All of which signal additional pathways for future research studies on children with SEN in Canada.
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 | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".