Viden om (lærer)uddannelse?: En ameldelse af "Komparativt studium af indholdet i læreruddannelser i Canada, Danmark, Finland og Singapore"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I artiklen analyseres og diskuteres "Komparativt studium af indholdet i læreruddannelser i Canada, Danmark, Finland og Singapore", og der føres debat med forfatterne til rapporten, som blev gennemført for Regeringens Rejsehold af et forskerteam fra DPU i forbindelse med det såkaldte 360 graders eftersyn af folkeskolen. I artiklen fremfører vi tre overordnede kritikpunkter: 1) Validitet: Der er betydelig forskel på litteraturgrundlag og indhold. Rapportens sigte er angiveligt at undersøge indhold, men er begrænset til at afdække forskelle i litteraturgrundlag. 2) Reliabilitet: Vi anfægter den kategorisering af litteratur som anvendes i forhold til forskellige vidensformer. En del af litteraturen kunne med lige så god ret have været kategoriseret anderledes. 3) Videnskabelig uafhængighed: Forfatterne til rapporten drøfter på ingen måde den aktuelle sammenhæng rapporten indgår i. I artiklen inddrages desuden et kritisk meta-perspektiv på sådanne komparative undersøgelser, der altid kan forbindes med interesser, bestemte prioriteringer, og metodiske tilgange.
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 | 0.021 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.023 |
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".