Teachers’ Indicators Used to Describe Professional Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The teaching profession has been studied and discussed from a problem-oriented point of view and cultivated by a problem-oriented scientific tradition. Years of research have enabled a better understanding of difficult teaching conditions and teachers’ ill-being; an ideological and scientific shift, however, appears necessary to enrich and broaden our present knowledge. One particular question arises: which determinants optimize teachers’ professional well-being? In response, our study seeks to identify indicators that allow teachers to create, maintain or restore a state of professional well-being. Our research objective thus aims to describe teachers’ indicators regarding the “optimal functioning” that characterizes professional well-being (Seligman, 2011). The research protocol targets physical education teachers insofar as they are now recognized as leaders and models for promoting healthy lifestyles in schools and communities (MEQ, 2001). The methodology involved 5 focus groups composed of 37 teachers from 7 regions of Quebec. As the findings indicate, this approach allowed us to paint an integrative portrait of teachers’ indicators relative to professional well-being. Two categories have proved effective in terms of professional well-being: the first is Self and includes 4 variables: meaning, positive emotions, engagement and vitality; the second is Others and includes 3 sub-categories: students, colleagues and school administration. The sub-categories comprise 6 variables divided as follows: positive relationships, learning, collaboration, transfer (specifically for the two first sub-categories), followed by vision and valorization for the third sub-category.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".