MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994004837

Teaching in Rural Saskatchewan: First Year Teachers Identify Challenges and Make Recommendations.

2011· article· en· W2994004837 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laurie-ann M. Hellsten, Laureen J. McIntyre, Michelle Prytula

Bibliographic record

VenueThe rural educator · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous and Place-Based Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipPracticumContext (archaeology)WorkloadRural areaTeacher educationPedagogyMedical educationQualitative researchPsychologyRural communitySociologyPolitical scienceMedicineGeographyManagementSocioeconomicsSocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the existing research on rural education, rural teaching, and pre-service rural practicum placements, there is little research on the experiences of beginning teachers in rural schools. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of Saskatchewan beginning teachers who obtain employment in rural or northern schools. Eight beginning teachers voluntarily participated in a telephone interview during their first year in the teaching profession. Their interviews highlighted shared themes related to the challenges of working in rural and northern communities, including: acceptance; understanding the community; isolation; overlap between personal and professional lives; and impact of rural context on workload. In addition, participants made recommendations for teachers considering employment in these environments, including: preparing to obtain a rural teaching position; seeking out mentorship relationships; and making connections within and outside of the community. These shared themes are discussed within the context of existing literature, and recommendations are made relating to future directions for research in this area.

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)0.000
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe rural educatorSame topicIndigenous and Place-Based EducationFrench-language works237,207