Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem investigated sounds acute as long as any teacher can meet a necessity to work with different categories of students including young men and ladies who are at war with rules and regulations, and do not want to put up with typical social behaviour. The article aims at defining deviant behaviour as a studying discipline violation, which can become a harsh obstacle for the teacher’s attempts to construct a usual architecture of a lesson. It also reveals a set of psychological-and-pedagogical conditions which are seen as capable of overcoming students’ deviant behaviour. The experiment underlining the effectiveness level of the complex (set) suggested has become a mainstream investigation method of this problem and heads for a constructive work with risk-prone students (prone to deviant behaviour). Following a step-by-step prevention of students’ deviant behaviour, implementing preventive pedagogics and deviantology into courses of further promotion for teachers, constructing theatre studios for risk-prone students – all this can set up a healthy atmosphere in a students’ group and become a strong basis of preventive knowledge for the teacher. The article materials can be useful while organizing the teacher’s psychological-and-pedagogical work (especially for beginning teachers) with a collective of risk-prone, deviant-behaving students – the students who tend to ruin the studying discipline systematically.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".