What makes relationships with teachers caring? Perceptions of youth "at-promise"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine how youths in alternative educational settings view caring relationships with their teachers. In this study caring relationships with teachers are viewed as a factor contributing to the resilience of youths. Youths themselves are considered to be “at-promise” of academic success rather than “at-risk” of failure (David, 2008; Davis, 1996; Franklin, 2000; Whiting, 2006). Caring relationships between youth “at-promise” and teachers are approached as a system of interrelated components, and viewed through the lens of of the ecological systems theory, as proposed by Brofenbrenner (1979). The study reveals youths’ perceptions of caring in teacher-student relationships which are grouped into main three themes including activities, principles, and environments. The impact of gender on youths’ perceptions of caring is examined. This qualitative research is rooted in the interpretivist paradigm and utilizes the constructivist grounded theory method, as described by Charmaz (2000, 2006). Data collection took the form of semi-structured interviews with eleven youth from an alternative educational setting in the urban area of Saskatchewan. The implications for teachers, schools and teacher education programs are discussed, and possible directions for enhancement of practices are suggested. The avenues for future research are explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".