Methodology of Comparative Analysis of Public School Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development in Great Britain, Canada and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the article the methodology of comparative analysis of public school teachers’ continuing professional development (CPD) in Great Britain, Canada and the USA has been presented. The main objectives are defined as theoretical analysis of scientific and pedagogical literature, which highlights different aspects of the problem under research; characteristic of the research methodology, used to conduct the comparative analysis. Their major components of the research model (parametric-determining, conceptual and analytical, integrating-analytical and differentiating-analytical, prognostic component) have been defined and specified. Public school teachers’ CPD has been studied by foreign and domestic scientists: political, social, cultural and economic aspects of teachers’ CPD (L. Darling-Hammond, M. Tight); CPD programs (C. Pratt); CPD content (N. Dana Fichtman, M. Rees, A. Ross, S. Zepeda); CPD models, methods and forms (K. Duinlan, P. Grimmet, G. Troia, P. Wong); continuous professional education (Ya. Belmaz, A. Kuzminskyy, O. Kuznyetsova). The research methodology comprises theoretical (comparative-historical, logical, induction and deduction, comparison and compatibility, structural and systematic, analysis and synthesis, general scientific and interdisciplinary forecasting methods), 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.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".