Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 5 includes a real school case study to illustrate all phases of the FAR Model. Goal pursuit in this school is considered as meta-level because a school-wide goal was set for the topic of improving goal pursuit itself within the whole school. It is not a highly sophisticated, nor perfect (such a case does not exist), example but it does show application in context. The FAR Model activity engaged in matched current thinking and research associated with goal setting and achievement. In particular, and unusual in my experience, this school progressed to ‘evaluation’ as a confirming consolidating phase of the model and in doing so showed valuable evidence of successful implementation, celebrated achievement and most importantly were well-informed to clarify the next steps for improvement. This chapter concludes with discussion of drawing up recommendations and reporting on goal pursuit whilst employing collaboration to ensure engagement and buy-in from key people.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".