Experience and identities in re-construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the current research seeks at understanding how affects the knowledge re-construction, the professional action and the reconstitution of the teaching identity, the changes that have taken place in the last decades, the educational policies, the legislation, institutional changes, agreements, and the personal and professional experiences of each teacher. Originality: among the four dimensions that the project addresses (teaching development, experience, interactions and inclusion into organizations), we selected the approach of experience, focusing on the joint of knowledge of practice and professional identity. The method: The narrative research has researchers from the universities of Minho-Pt, Évora-Pt and UFR / UFMT / Br. As strategy, we opted to constitute the research corpus with narratives from three teachers of children. One from Brazil and two from Portugal, with 20 to 30 years of teaching practice. The question is, what are the most significant learnings identified by teachers? How is experience constituted as professional development? What experiences with children do teachers report as the most significant? To conclude, research shows that interactions with children, professional peers, and communities are the main pillar for the (re) construction of professional identities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".