Researcher Teacher Program: Achievements and Shortcomings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a study entitled "Pathology and Researcher Teacher Program promotion and development approaches”. The aim of this study is to identify achievements, the cooperation and participation of teachers and principals in school activities in Researcher Teacher Plan and awareness of the shortcomings and obstacles in the implementation of this program. The research method is descriptive. The population statistic in this study involves two groups of researcher and non-researcher teachers and administrators. The sample consisted of 500 members who are estimated according to the population size on the basis of Kerjcie and Morgan table. Moreover, to select desired sample, multi-stage sampling method is used. Totally, 19 districts region of Tehran are divided into 5 categories and one region is randomly selected of each category and also from each region girls and boy’s school in primary school, secondary and high schools are chosen randomly and a number of researcher and non-researcher teachers and administrators of schools are selected randomly as samples size. Two types of questionnaire are used for data collection. In order to study the form and content tools, the opinions of 10 experts and Cronbach’s alpha is used to calculate reliability. The results showed that obstacles and shortcomings measurement has are significant level of P<0.5 and alpha coefficient is obtained 0.715 and questionnaire to assess the qualitative achievements of the plan has a significant level P<0.5 and Alpha as 0.587. Results showed achievements for researcher teacher is far greater than non- researcher teachers and administrators. Furthermore, researcher teachers and administrators have participated more than non-researcher ones in holding briefings, workshops and council meetings teachers but no significant differences appears in participation between the two groups of teachers in workshops and council meetings there. Non-Researcher teachers and administrators state that obstacles and shortcomings of non-researcher teacher’s plans are more than researcher teachers and administrators. However, both group almost are deployed similarly the first six obstacles as priorities 1 to 6.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".