Future teachers' relationships with physical and technological environments
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
Is future teachers’ contact with the physical environment significant enough for them to choose to educate their students about sustainability? These digital natives stand out from previous generations by their way of living, working and learning. Does the use of ICT by these young adults contribute to distancing them from the physical environment? Are future teachers, better informed thanks to technology, committed to environmental action? This research based on grounded theory was aimed at understanding future teachers’ relationships with physical and technological environments. The analysis of individual and group interviews with Moncton and Montreal teacher education students reveals that future teachers maintain a sporadic relation to the natural environment. They are still conscious that nature provides them with calmness, rejuvenation, and beauty. The Internet, visited at least two hours daily, offers them distraction, social affiliation, and personalized information, as well as facilitates their tasks and contact with the World. Future teachers are critical and cautious in their use of ICT, but are not much involved in the environmental cause. This research emphasizes the need to work on future teachers’ relationship to the physical environment with outdoor activities to get to know, appreciate, analyze, and improve the natural and urban environments. Key words: education, environment, Social networks,pedagogy.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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