MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509212255 · doi:10.22329/jtl.v8i1.2980

Connecting for Greater Purpose: An Examination of a District PLC

2012· article· en· W1509212255 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Annie Gojmerac, Lorenzo Cherubini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Teaching and Learning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipGrounded theoryProfessional developmentPedagogySchool districtQualitative researchKey (lock)Service (business)SociologyProfessional learning communityFaculty developmentPsychologyMathematics educationPublic relationsComputer sciencePolitical scienceBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses an innovative professional development model based on a personal service approach of teacher collaboration in lieu of the more traditional expert-driven in-service paradigm. It presents a research-based Professional Learning Community (PLC) model in a large urban Ontario (Canada) school board that focused on transformational teaching strategies as a means of professional development to enhance teacher practice and improve student learning. The two key themes of the grounded theory qualitative analysis are also discussed. They include: (1) contextually-relevant PLCs, and (2) teacher leadership embedded in relationships. Last, the paper provides a framework for provincial, district, and school-level administrators to support the underlying values of teachers’ professional capacities as collaborative lead learners.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Teaching and LearningSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207