Early education teachers’ conceptualizations and strategies for managing closeness in child care: The personal domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated teachers’ experiences of closeness during interactions with children in child care. Structured interviews were conducted with 24 female teachers who were teaching children between the ages of three and five (mean age = 3.9) regarding their conceptions of closeness, and their perceptions of their own and the child’s contributions to close interactions. Qualitative analyses of the interviews revealed a relational model of teacher—child relationships that included a professional domain, an attachment domain and a personal domain, with the personal domain as most dominant in teachers’ perceptions. The personal domain was interpreted as consistent with Weingarten’s (1991) theory of intimate interactions and adds a new perspective on affective dimensions of caring (Goldstein, 1999). Teachers viewed relationships with particular children as a personal two-way relationship where both contributed either solely or mutually in their desire to be close. Teachers described intentional strategies for managing the close relationship that made use of the past history and the anticipated future of the relationship.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".