Ways of Being in Teaching: Conversing Paths to Meaning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we invite readers into a conversation about ways of being in teaching. Through e ‐ mails, telephone calls, and face ‐ to ‐ face meetings, we use our first conversa ‐ tions with each other as shared moments that we returned to, seeking to better under ‐ stand how we made meaning in our individual school teaching careers, and how we continue to make meaning as teacher educators. Exploring together our memories, we use poetry and narrative to collaboratively interpret what those memories might mean for us and for educational communities. Key Words: autoethnography, collaborative research, poetic inquiry, teacher educa ‐ tion, writing as research Dans cet article, les auteurs invitent les lecteurs a participer a une conversation sur les facons d’etre comme pedagogues. Les conversations que les auteurs ont eux ‐ memes engagees entre eux a travers des courriels, des echanges telephoniques et des ren ‐ contres ont constitue le point de depart de leur reflexion en vue de mieux comprendre le sens qu’ils ont donne a leurs carrieres respectives dans l’enseignement et qu’ils continuent a donner a leur implication actuelle dans la formation a l’enseignement. Explorant leurs souvenirs, ils ont recours a la poesie et a des recits pour interpreter ensemble le sens que pourraient avoir ces souvenirs pour eux et pour les milieux d’enseignement. Mots cles : autoethnographie, recherche concertee, enquete poetique, formation a l’enseignement, ecriture comme mode de recherche.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".