Applying Emotional Intelligence: Exploring the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies curriculum
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
This paper describes a collaborative action research project in one primary school that arose from a mutual interest in applying the concept of “Emotional Intelligence”. It involves an exploratory qualitative study of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum. This is an approach aimed at promoting emotional competence in children and young people. The PATHS curriculum was chosen because of its clear conceptualisation of emotion, its emphasis upon cognitive and developmental aspects and its research history. One class of 9 and 10 year olds took part in the project. Target children were selected from within this group for closer monitoring. The outcomes suggest that PATHS was rated very positively by class teachers, pupils and other staff involved in the project. Positive emotional, social and behavioural changes at a class and individual level were attributed to the effects of PATHS. Finally, the importance of developing a positive school ethos was highlighted as promoting these effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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