Teachers’ and other Professionals’ Learning Practices
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an extensive comparative analysis of professional learning. As Chapter 1 has documented, professionals depend greatly on formal education entry credentials for their legitimacy. Professionals are also widely assumed to engage in continual learning to upgrade their specialized knowledge and skills to remain current in complex and changing jobs. We posit that, since professional occupations remain highly dependent on recognition of specialized knowledge, continuing participation in further job-related formal education (usually called “professional development”) is likely to be higher than in most other occupations. As noted in the Introduction, workplace learning can be seen as occurring on an informal-formal continuum, with much of it taking place informally (see Betcherman 1998: Livingstone 2009). All workers are likely to require continuing learning in relation to changing job conditions, so we expect that the incidence of job-related informal learning will be quite extensive among all occupations. Most of the attention in this chapter will be devoted to comparing formal provision of professional development for teachers and other specific professional occupations and by class positions of professionals.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it