MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004469875 · doi:10.1080/13603110701365356

Demographic differences in changing pre‐service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education

2008· article· en· W2004469875 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Forlin, Tim Loreman, Umesh Sharma, Chris Earle

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Inclusive Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Unit (ring theory)Set (abstract data type)Teacher preparationService (business)PsychologyWork (physics)PerceptionTeacher educationPedagogyMedical educationSpecial educationMathematics educationMedicineSocial psychologyBusinessComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The preparation of teachers for regular schools has clearly needed to undergo quite significant change in recent years. One major adjustment has been the necessity to prepare teachers for progressively more diverse student populations as they will increasingly be required to teach in inclusive classrooms. Many teacher education institutions are, therefore, offering units of work that aim to tackle this. Utilizing an international data set of 603 pre‐service teachers, consideration is given to the effect of a range of demographic differences on changing pre‐service teacher attitudes toward inclusion; sentiments towards people with a disability and in reducing their concerns about inclusion when involved in a focused unit of work. Pre‐ and post‐training comparisons are made which identify a range of variables that impact on changing pre‐service teacher perceptions about inclusion. The discussion focuses on the importance of differentiating teacher preparation courses to address these different needs of pre‐service teachers.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations372
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Inclusive EducationSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207