©2012 Canadian Society for the Study of Education/
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring Inclusive Educational Practices provides an excellent framework for the important work of sustained reflection and implementation of inclusive education. Porter and Smith refer to inclusion, defined as all students, including those with disabilities and other special needs, are educated in regular classrooms with their peers in their community schools (p. 18/19), as being a pillar of education. They expertly weave 25 diverse case studies into a five pillared (to extend their metaphor) framework describing inclusive education. Pillar one asks readers to reflect on their commitment to inclusion- do we “walk the talk ” of our values? Pillar two moves into practice- what does inclusion look like at the school level? What professional knowledge and practices are required to ensure that inclusion happens? Pillar three broadens to consider the entire school framework. What are the whole school level plans and practices required to make inclusion work? Pillar four aptly addresses the variety of typical challenges and barriers to making inclusive schools a reality. Pillar five addresses the role of parents, clearly respecting the critical role of parents at the heart of inclusive education. (p. 173)
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.447 | 0.139 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".