MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097398829

THE EVOLUTION OF DISABILITY STUDIES AMIDST SCHOOL REFORM IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRDOR: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON LOCAL PRACTICE

2015· article· en· W7097398829 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)Service delivery frameworkLegislatureService (business)Special education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper (a version of which was included in Focusing on Students: The final report of the ISSP/Pathways Commission(Government of NL, 2007) will offer a theoretical framework to the model of Student Support Services delivered in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). The province follows an interagency approach in the delivery of a diagnostic and prescriptive service model, despite efforts in recent years to use the language of inclusion. In exploring the development of this model, we begin with a brief review of the history of special services, both from a global and a local paradigm perspective. While the history of special education is a “fascinating and complex story ” (Kauffman, 1981 p.4) which has been affected by social, psychological and educational events, we will attempt to discuss it along separate themes so as to afford a stronger analysis. Central to this, will be an historical context for a paradigm of disability services, including legislative support of special education and the emergence of both a cascade model of service delivery and individualized planning. This leads to an examination of the effects that the School Reform movement has had on special education and how it directly contributed to the emergence of inclusive education. With this background established, we

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.375 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designQualitative · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207