MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970101135 · doi:10.5430/jct.v8n3p160

School and District Leaders Talk about Teacher Attrition

2019· article· en· W2970101135 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Professional Development and Motivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttritionPoint (geometry)Dimension (graph theory)PsychologyQualitative researchSchool districtPedagogyMathematics educationMedical educationSociologyMedicineSocial scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Teacher attrition has become a challenge in many educational systems worldwide. Many studies have focused onteachers' perspectives, while attempting to identify the factors that motivated teachers' decision to leave theprofession. The present study aimed to explore teacher attrition from the point of view of school leaders - principalsand inspectors. Using qualitative and quantitative methods, the results indicate that school and district leadersperceived teacher attrition via two-dimensional structure, including explicit and implicit dimensions. The explicitdimension refers to the act of leaving. The participants indicated that the main reasons that motivate teachers'decision to leave the profession are related to the stressful working environment and poor job conditions. Theimplicit dimension presents a hidden attrition. Based on cost-benefit theory the study highlights the complexstructure of teacher attrition.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.292 · 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