Pan-Canadian Perspectives on Teacher Education: The State of the Art in Comparative Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This text proposes a comparative analysis of the inter-provincial developments of the professionalization of teacher education in Canada, and focuses on two issues: governance of teacher education and the development of new training programs. More specifically, based on a literature review, we analyse how current comparative research brings an understanding of the professionalization of teaching in Canada and we argue the need for more comparative studies in this matter. Ce texte propose une analyse comparative interprovinciale des évolutions de la professionnalisation de la formation des enseignants au Canada selon deux enjeux : la gouvernance de la formation des enseignants et la mise en place des nouveaux programmes universitaires. Plus spécifiquement, nous étudions, à travers une revue de la documentation, de quelle manière la recherche comparative actuelle permet de mieux comprendre le mouvement de professionnalisation au Canada. Nous argumentons enfin de l’importance de réaliser davantage d’études comparatives dans ce sujet.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".