MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110974158

Concurrent pre-service teachers: An analysis of values

2013· article· en· W2110974158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas G. Ryan, Courtney R. Schruder, Stephanie Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in educational research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicValues and Moral Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDominance (genetics)AxiologyValues educationSocial psychologyLawPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our investigation of axiology (study of values) allowed us to ascertain a hierarchy of values of pre-service education students concurrently enrolled in two degree programs. We discovered homogeneity which may be a consequence of the discipline (education) investigated and/or sampling, as 87% were female, which reflected the female dominance of the current Ontario pre-service education program at our University, and males totalled only 13%. Our values are linked to our understanding of self-concept and character we believed. Our survey data were examined in terms of gender, year of study, and division of study. Homogeneity of values was revealed within ‘Terminal values’ (end state of existence) as Family security was ranked highest. True friends was ranked second and Health ranked third; whereas Self-respect was ranked fourth and Freedom was fifth, leaving Equality sixth. For ‘Instrumental values’ (modes of conduct) being Honest was ranked highest by the entire sample (n=319) and Responsible was second. Loving was ranked third and Helpful was ranked fourth highest. Loyal was ranked fifth and Ambitious was ranked sixth. Teaching is not neutral therefore values clarification for teachers is a matter of identity as we need to be aware of what values we possess and employ within our praxes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in educational researchSame topicValues and Moral EducationFrench-language works237,207