MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033307736 · doi:10.1177/0033688220915647

‘We Teach Who We Are’: Contemplation, Reflective Practice and Spirituality in TESOL

2020· article· en· W3033307736 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRELC Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContemplationSpiritualityPedagogyPerspective (graphical)CurriculumDisciplineTeacher educationSociologyPsychologyTeaching methodProfessional developmentField (mathematics)Mathematics educationEpistemologyComputer scienceSocial sciencePhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For most of its history, the field of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) has focussed much of its attention on teaching methods and curricula to the exclusion of the person who must deliver them. In this article we propose that TESOL recognize the inner lives of teachers through understanding their spirituality from the perspective of the teacher’s personal and professional being and becoming. We encourage teachers to reflect on the spiritual dimensions of practice and propose how these might interface with standard disciplinary knowledge to produce more integrated language teachers.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.335 · 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