Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two teacher-educators, an instructor and a teaching assistant, designed an action research project focused on enhancing their professional practice and the practice of their students by introducing the preservice teachers to action research. Both teacher-educators viewed this decision as progressive and emancipatory, as action research encourages inquiry and reflection, connects theory to practice, and creates links between preservice and in-service teaching. Simultaneously, the teacher-educators integrated preservice curriculae, modeling the enriched teaching and learning that can result from an interdisciplinary approach. Data include preservice teachers' action research proposals, reports and reflections, as well as the teacher-educators' reflections and collaborative conversations. Instructors used self-study methodology to reflect on their effectiveness in enhancing the professional lives of their students and themselves. A significant number of preservice teachers indicated that engaging in action research expanded their conceptions of teaching; such expansion holds potential for fostering change in schools.
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 | 0.116 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".