MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099943995

PUB TYPE Reports- Research (143) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)

2016· article· en· W7099943995 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelation (database)Qualitative researchPerceptionData collectionParticipant observation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Girls-only programs in Canadian public schools are a recent phenomenon; and, similar to the U.S. context, they have been designed primarily to provide equitable education for girls (boys programs are even newer and more scarce). A study investigated three such programs in Western Canada, each having similar and unique features. Research was qualitative and goals were to explore the students ' perceptions of gendered issues in schools and to examine the pedagogical and curricular practices of teachers in single-gender classrooms to see how these teachers view their classroom practices in relation to the philosophy and goals of the programs. Research methods included participant observation; interviews with students, parents, teachers, and administrators; and collection of school documents that record the histories, policy, stories of success, and problems. Preliminary findings suggest that underlying the inception of each program is a belief in the need to address issues of gender for adolescents. Some of the original purposes 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8280.717

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotanical Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207