Bibliographic record
Abstract
A research panel asked to frame the discussion for a new Teaching Quality Standard in Alberta assumes this task requires a paradigm shift away from the status quo efficiency movement. As a member of the panel, the author provides an analysis of paradigm shifts in education and recounts important lessons to be learned. The author challenges the notion that the alternative paradigm posed by an emerging knowledge society provides the best framework to define quality teaching. To accentuate the centrality of relationships, the author offers culture-making as a preferred paradigm where who teachers are is valued as much as what teachers do. Un groupe de recherche à qui on a demandé de délimiter une discussion sur une nouvelle norme pour la qualité de l’enseignement en Alberta part du principe que la tâche exige que l’on délaisse le mouvement actuel prônant l’efficacité. L’auteur, membre de ce groupe de recherche, analyse les changements de paradigme en éducation et rappelle les leçons importantes à tirer de cette évolution. L’auteur conteste la notion que le paradigme alternatif que pose la société de la connaissance émergeante constitue la meilleure base sur laquelle axer l’enseignement de qualité. Il propose plutôt un paradigme reposant sur la création de la culture selon lequel les enseignants sont appréciés pour ce qu’ils sont autant que pour ce qu’ils font.
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 | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| 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 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".