Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the major socializing agent in the transformation from student to teacher, the student teaching experi-ence is often cited as a critical compo-nent of the music teacher education process (Legette, 1997; Conkling & Henry, 1999)". It is valued most because it provides music education majors with an authentic setting. in which to forge links between the uni-versity context and the professional world of teaching, observe exemplary music teaching models, synthesize and integrate music education learning for teaching purposes, develop pedagogi-cal skills, contribute to the collabora-tive work of schools, and continue their ongoing inquiry into music teaching and learning (Bowles & Run-nels, 1998; Kerchner, 1998). In spite of the importance attached to the practicum, researchers have established Francine Morin is associateprofessor on the faculty ofeducation at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. very little about guiding the process (Verrastro & Leglar, 1992). The practicum appears to be the dimension of the music education program with the most variability in practice. It also seems to be the most needy aspect of the program in terms of systematic research and curriculum development. The purpose of this. paper is to offer perspectives on the development of collaborative partnerships for stu-den t teaching in music tha t have grown out of my work as a music teacher educator in the integrated
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".