A living theory approach to changing perspectives in contemporary teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is focused on the main assumption of the conference that rapid changes and increasing complexity of today’s world are bringing new challenges and growing demands on education systems that are committed to addressing all forms of disparities and inequalities in access, participation and learning outcomes, exclusion and marginalization. This paper provides evidence-based, living-theory answers to the questions on the relevance of these changing perspectives and approaches in research and practice in teacher education and teaching. A living-theory is an individual’s explanation of their educational influences in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of the social formations that influence practice and understanding. The livingtheories drawn on have been created and freely shared from http://www.actionresearch.net/living/living.shtml by educators living and working in diverse cultures and contexts around the world, including South Africa, Canada, Croatia, China, Pakistan and the UK. They share a common cause to contribute to the flourishing of humanity by researching to change their own and influencing other people's perspectives and approaches in contemporary teaching.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".