MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2216441838 · doi:10.5539/jel.v5n1p68

Resolving a Teacher-Student Conflict: An Intrinsic Case Study

2015· article· en· W2216441838 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Atara Isaacson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoveltyMathematics educationClass (philosophy)PsychologyNarrativeDisciplineAcademic achievementStudent engagementPedagogySocial psychologyComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents an episode that occurred during a semester-long academic course called: Conduct Problems and Class Navigation. It focuses on investigating the behavior of a student who, because of her uniqueness, was an interesting candidate for an intrinsic case study. This paper presents a distinctive way of handling an interfering and disruptive student in an academic course at the university. The description of the case takes the reader on a narrative journey and demonstrates a solution for the inappropriate behavior. The lecturer’s persistent and consistent use of the bypass procedure demonstrates an on-site application of a teaching tool and her response influenced the student’s behavior and achievement. This also caused the other students to be aware of basic rules concerning class conduct. The lecturer’s conduct in this case can contribute to beneficial conduct during academic teaching. The novelty here is in the lecturer’s modeling approach, which allows students to experience firsthand, a way of disciplinary problem solving which they can use with their future students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.316
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.152 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207