Colaboração entre pares em programas de desenvolvimento profissional docente
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although collaboration is valued in the discourses of teachers, managers and institutions, as well as recognized as essential for innovation in universities, the culture of individualism is the one that permeates university professors’ performance. This study aims to analyze teaching professional development programs undertaken at four universities (one international and three national), from the perspective of promoting peer collaboration. The analysis occurred through the collection of publications or websites that described them. The teaching professional development programs analyzed have peer collaboration as a premise and encourage the socialization of experiences in courses, forums and other continuing education events. However, it is observed the need for strategy diversification, such as mentorship, incentive to online activities and development of collective projects, so that collaboration can really be a pillar in the pedagogical continuing education, lifelong learning, as well as in the reconfiguration and innovation of university professors’ practices. Keywords: Higher education. Professional development. University professor.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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 it