The Characteristics of the Systems of Continuing Pedagogical Education in Great Britain, Canada and the USA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the article the systems of continuing pedagogical education in Great Britain, Canada and the USA have been characterized. The main objectives are defined as the theoretical analysis of scientific-pedagogical literature, which highlights different aspects of the problem under research; identification of the common and distinctive features of the systems of continuing pedagogical education in Great Britain, Canada, the USA. The legislative and normative framework of teachers’ CPD in Great Britain, Canada and the USA has been highlighted; the levels of the systems of continuing pedagogical education have been presented; the main functions of these systems have been determined; the key models, forms and methods of teachers’ CPD have been defined. Foreign and domestic scientists have studied the teachers’ CPD: teacher leadership (T. Bush, M. Clement, D. Jackson, D. Pavlou, R. Venderberghe), models, forms and methods of teachers’ CPD (L. Chance, A. Hollingsworth, D. Ross, E. Villegas-Reimers), non-formal teachers’ CPD (J. Scheerens). The research methodology comprises theoretical (logical, induction and deduction, comparison and compatibility, structural and systematic, analysis and synthesis) and applied (observations, questioning and interviewing) methods. The research results have been presented.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it