MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924217340 · doi:10.3968/6800

Teacher Education Policy Research in China: A Decade Review and Reflection

2015· review· en· W1924217340 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Professional Development and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaTeacher educationCertificateProcess (computing)Political sciencePerspective (graphical)Education policyValue (mathematics)Public relationsField (mathematics)Mathematics educationPedagogySociologyHigher educationPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, teacher education in China is at the key period of transition, and has stepped into a process of deepening reform. Thus, teacher education policy has also become a hot topic in education research. Faced with multiple difficulties and dilemmas in the process of teacher education reform, seeking the solution path and guarantee mechanism from the perspective of policy has been the important and difficult topic. Through combing relevant research achievements in teacher education policies, the focus is put on the interest groups and value pursuit of policies for free normal students, teacher qualification certificate, teachers training and teacher mobility. This article aims to grasp the research skeleton and current trends in the field of teacher education policy research, reflect on the problems appeared, and raise more researchers’ attentions and reflections on teacher education policy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.341 · 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