MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098734545

In this article: • Who are SIFEs? • Which countries do SIFEs come from?

2015· article· en· W7098734545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeIndigenousVietnameseGovernment (linguistics)Study abroadFormal education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Classroom Support for SIFEs "I didn't know how to read in my own language. I didn't know how to write. I only know how to speak and how to go to work." — Johnny Romah, Student Readers of The Vancouver Sun recently had the opportunity to meet Johnny Romah, a student who had survived a treacherous journey and experience in a refugee camp before coming to Canada. Darah Hansen, the reporter who covered the story, wrote, Johnny Romah was 17 on his very first day of school. A member of the Montagnard — or mountain — people of Vietnam, Romah arrived in Vancouver in 2005 after an exhausting year spent in a refugee camp in Cambodia. He'd fled his impoverished village at the age of 16, fearing arrest — even death —at the hands of Vietnamese government forces, which have long been in brutal conflict with the country's indigenous people … Before coming to Vancouver, he'd never spent a single day in a classroom, never read a book, and only once, in the refugee camp, could he recall ever attempting to put pen to paper. (2008) Johnny is one of 200 refugee students in the Vancouver school district, and is what many educators consider a Student with Interrupted Formal Education (SIFE). Even if Johnny had known how to read in his native language, the process of

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.015

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae ResearchFrench-language works237,207