MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335961044 · doi:10.1177/0734282915587990

Teacher Well-Being

2015· article· en· W2335961044 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rebecca J. Collie, Jennifer D. Shapka, Nancy E. Perry, Andrew J. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychoeducational Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyNormalityWell-beingWorkloadScale (ratio)BurnoutReliability (semiconductor)Sample (material)Job satisfactionApplied psychologyPsychometricsSocial psychologyMathematics educationDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the psychometric properties of the Teacher Well-Being Scale, which assesses three factors of teachers’ work-related well-being: workload, organizational, and student interaction well-being. With a sample of Canadian teachers, results confirmed the reliability, approximate normality, and factor structure of the scale; provided support for a higher order factor of teacher well-being; showed the instrument functioned similarly across different sociodemographic subgroups; and demonstrated the well-being factors were related as expected with external constructs of teacher stress, job satisfaction, and general well-being. Combined, these analyses provide support for the use of the instrument as an assessment of teacher well-being and evidence of the importance of teacher well-being for other teacher outcomes. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations203
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychoeducational AssessmentSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207