MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191920805 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711173

A Multilevel Person-Centered Examination of Teachers' Workplace Experiences: Replication and Extension With Links to Instructional Support and Achievement

2021· article· en· W3191920805 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebecca J. Collie, Andrew J. Martin, Alexandre J. S. Morin, Lars‐Erik Malmberg, Pam Sammons

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyReplication (statistics)Multilevel modelSet (abstract data type)Reading (process)Matching (statistics)AccountabilityWork (physics)Academic achievementMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a replication and extension of an earlier study, we relied on person-centered analyses to identify teacher (Level 1) and school (Level 2) profiles based on teachers' experiences of job demands (barriers to professional development, disruptive student behavior), job resources (teacher collaboration, input in decision-making), and personal resources (self-efficacy). We examined data from 5,439 teachers working in 364 schools in Australia and 2,216 teachers working in 149 schools in England. Latent profile analysis revealed six teacher profiles: Low-Demand-Flourisher (11%), Mixed-Demand-Flourisher (17%), Job-Resourced-Average (11%), Balanced-Average (14%), Mixed-Resourced-Struggler (11%), and Low-Resourced-Struggler (36%). Two school profiles were identified: an Unsupportive school profile (43%) and a Supportive school profile (57%). Several significant relations between these profiles and teacher/school characteristics and work-related outcomes were also identified at both levels. Although our results generally replicated prior findings, some differences were also observed, possibly as a results of recent changes in policies regarding in teacher support and accountability. Next, we extended prior work using a subsample of the Australian teachers for whom we had matching student data. This second set of results revealed that schools with a greater proportion of low-SES students were more likely to present an Unsupportive school profile. Moreover, the Supportive school profile was associated with higher levels of student-reported instructional support and school-average achievement in reading, mathematics, and science.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207