Accepting Research: Teachers' Representations of Participation in Educational Research Projects
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
<p style="text-align: justify;">Collecting data among participants belonging to a group, community or organization is a crucial step in social research. However, generally speaking, in the social sciences, the issue of access to the research field has not been widely or systematically studied and remains under-theorized. The goal of this study is to draw the participants’ perspective on the question of accepting research into their classrooms and participating in it, an object that has usually been overlooked in studies on research field access. This article presents the results of a qualitative, exploratory study aimed at documenting teachers’ representations relating to whether or not they wish to participate in research projects, when requested to do so by researchers. The analysis brought out a system comprising five categories of representations relating to participation or non-participation in an educational research project. These representations are related to 1) the teacher’s daily tasks; 2) the teacher's professional development; 3) the teacher's professional identity and professional ideal; 4) the institutional and collegial context; and 5) the teacher's responsibility toward students. We discuss these categories and their implications for further research. </p>
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it