MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W9265582 · doi:10.5206/eei.v20i1.7655

Involving and Engaging Parents of Children with IEPs

2010· article· en· W9265582 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueExceptionality Education International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersGovernment of OntarioSociety for Research in Child Development
KeywordsPsychologyThematic analysisQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologyInclusion (mineral)PedagogySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored parents’ views of the educational experience of children with Individual Education Plans. The research goal was to determine how parents are meaningfully involved and engaged in the development and monitoring of educa-tion programs for their children. The primary data source for the study was 31 interviews with parents, analysed using qualitative thematic analysis; additional data came from parent questionnaires, which provided further information about parents’ experiences. This mixed methods study describes the nature of parent in-volvement and engagement in schools, particularly in Individual Education Plan development and implementation. The study also examined how parent involve-ment and engagement (a) relate to parents’ satisfaction with school programs and (b) are contextualized within inclusive practice for children with disabilities. The findings of the study are discussed in relation to the broader literature on parent involvement and engagement.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.329 · 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