Bibliographic record
Abstract
The profession of teaching is unique because of the extent to which a teacher becomes involved in the lives of their "clients". The level of care required to support students well can be intense, confusing, and overwhelming. Relationships co-evolve within an ever-changing process and care is considered an essential aspect of complex relationships between students and teachers. While we do have many standard guidelines to help us, such as codes of ethics, rules, and policies, this paper examines their limitations. The ethics of care require more than standards or guidelines. To mitigate these limitations, we offer a more complex way of thinking as a way to navigate the dynamic disequilibrium of caring relationships. In the process, we emphasize the need for caring teachers to embrace their own vulnerability. This way of thinking provides us with an ecological ethical approach for engaging in professional relationships that promotes respect, safety, and self-worth for all involved.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".