Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of "inviting school success" began and developed through critical and imaginative acts. Dissatisfaction with conceptualizations of school practices that negated the heart of the educative process, led to the development of an alternative framework that was more sensitive to the perceptual realities and ethical responsibilities of participants in the educative process. Imaginative invitational thinkers asked such questions as: What if we used a metaphor of "doing with" rather than "doing to" as a framework for looking at the teacher- student relationship? What if we focused on the invitational qualities of the messages intended, extended, received, and acted upon in school settings? What if we tried to make schools "the most inviting place in town?" What if we formed a network of educators who were sympathetic to these ideas? With this imaginative inception, texts have been written (Novak, 1992; Purkey, 1978; Purkey & Novak, 1984; Purkey & Strahan, 1986; Purkey & Schmidt, 1987; Purkey & Novak, 1988; Purkey & Stanley, 1991; Wilson, 1986), an International Alliance for Invitational Education has been formed, and a conceptual model (Purkey and Schmidt, 1987) has been developed. Thus, educators seeking to promote inviting practices have ample resources.
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 | 0.055 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".