Timetabling and extracurricular activities: a study of teachers’ attitudes towards preparation time
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
Many models of timetabling exist in secondary schools in Western educational jurisdictions. This study examines whether or not teachers teaching a full course load without preparation time during a semester are willing to volunteer to participate in extracurricular activities. This research was conducted in a rural school district in British Columbia, Canada. Teacher workload, preparation time and willingness to volunteer for extracurricular activities were addressed. Over 70 per cent of respondents to the survey indicated that they found their workload unmanageable during the semester in which they had no preparation time while over 90 per cent of respondents indicated they wanted to have preparation time distributed evenly over the full school year. A significant majority of teachers do not supervise extracurricular activities when they have no preparation time. A comprehensive literature review examining advantages and disadvantages of the semester timetable and an extensive bibliography are included.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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