MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CONSTRUCTING AND VALIDATING A SCALE FOR ASSESSING THE SOCIABILITY OF TEACHERS

2016· article· en· W2517892617 on OpenAlexaff
SherineVinoca Snehalatha

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsEston College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyScale (ratio)Confirmatory factor analysisConstruct validitySocial psychologyContext (archaeology)Construct (python library)Consistency (knowledge bases)TraitDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present context, educationist and education planners have started preferring social learning environments in the classrooms. Thus arises the need for teacher behaviour characteristically ‘sociable’ in nature. The ability to be in the company of others is the core of ‘sociability’. On analyzing literature, the author has identified three constructs forming the core of sociability – Trust and belonging; Sense of community; and Good working relationship. On the basis of these altogether 36 statements were formed to be answered on a 4 point scale ranging from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. After establishing content validity, item validity, and construct validity, the draft tool retained thirty items. The presence of the trait constructs were established by confirmatory factor analysis. The rested reliability coefficient 0.697 upholds the consistency of the tool.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.420 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAHSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207