MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2929560539

Pre-service teachers’ practicum stress, beliefs about teaching and inclusive practices, and executive functions

2019· article· en· W2929560539 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey MacCormack

Bibliographic record

Venue2019 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumPsychologyExecutive functionsSalience (neuroscience)PedagogyCognitionCognitive psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To establish inclusive strategies, effective teachers need to be able to perform a variety of essential tasks, such as being able to self-monitor, control their emotions, access working memory, and plan/initiate strategies. Those essential tasks are known in the literature as executive functions and the research shows that they can be improved. While Faculties of Education across Alberta include instruction of inclusive practices as a central component of pre-service programs, pre-service teachers are not taught to improve their own executive functions. Despite the tantalizing research on the salience of executive functions for success with complex behaviour, such as the skills required to establish inclusive learning environments (e.g., Diamond, 2012), we know very little, as a field, about the executive functions of pre-service teachers in our programs. In light of the connections between executive functions and successful inclusive practices, the current project looks to understand more about executive functions of pre-service teachers. In particular, the current project is designed to help us understand the relationships among executive functions and factors such as teacher stress and perceptions of teaching and inclusive practices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2019 Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of EducationSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207