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 study extends previous investigations of interns’ and their
 cooperating teachers’ views of teaching in rural schools, which were conducted in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. The present paper includes findings from a survey conducted in 2002 of a fifth cohort of interns and their classroom cooperating teachers. It examined the same four items analyzed in the four previous studies (namely: the advantages of teaching in rural areas, the disadvantages of doing so, recommendations about practicum placements for future interns, and advice for these interns), as well as items that also solicited respondents’ views of what
 the University’s College of Education and the rural school divisions could do to promote both interning and teaching in rural schools. Findings are synthesized and implications are drawn for both the University and the school divisions involved in these studies as well as for other institutions in similar situations—with respect to improving internship and teaching, and to helping promote the stability of rural communities, of which the school is often a key component.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it