MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983057469 · doi:10.1086/499702

Canadian Students' Perceptions of Teacher Characteristics That Support or Inhibit Help Seeking

2002· article· en· W1983057469 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lucy Le Mare, Elahe Sohbat

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Elementary School Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingPsychologyHelp-seekingPerceptionCompetence (human resources)Social psychologyMoodPersonalityDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine students' perceptions of teacher characteristics that support or inhibit help seeking, using the critical incident technique, and to explore the feelings students experience in seeking help from teachers. 115 students (grades 2-7) in 6 suburban elementary schools participated in a semistructured interview. An inductive analysis of the interview transcripts yielded 10 broad categorical descriptors of teacher characteristics that students perceived as supporting or inhibiting their help seeking. These included teacher willingness, competence, reactions to help seeking, expectations, personality traits, relationships with students, predictability, familiarity, gender, and mood. We provide rich descriptions of responses in each category. Help-seeking interactions evoked strong feelings in students that related to how comfortable they were in seeking assistance from teachers. Results are discussed in relation to previous research and implications for teaching.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Elementary School JournalSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207