MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133060455

Won't You Be My Neighbour? Socio-Economic Segregation Between Schools in Canada: An Interprovincial Analysis

2022· other· en· W7133060455 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna K. Chmielewski, Sachin Maharaj

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenter for Makroøkologi, Evolution og Klima
KeywordsSortingInequalityInclusion (mineral)Ranking (information retrieval)School choiceDemocracyPublic policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Socio-economic sorting in schools—namely, separation of social groups between schools by parental affluence, education, and ethnicity—is pervasive across Canada. Critics warn that this kind of segregation undermines democratic principles of equity, inclusion and diversity. By breaking down socio-economic sorting in schools by province, this report not only provides a ranking of most-to-least equitable school systems in Canada. It also exposes the different kinds of segregation that are occurring in each region—each of which likely require region-specific policies to combat. To help concerned parties fight against educational inequality more effectively, our report classifies the factors that contribute to socio-economic sorting between schools in a given region. They include: residential neighbourhood, “school choice” options (such as private and religious schools), and the availability of specialized public school programs like French immersion. This report is a policy brief intended for a wider audience. It is a companion piece for our technical discussion of the topic.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→French-language works237,207→