Editorial: Reclaiming the professional development agenda in an age of compliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue of the journal takes as is starting point a global context, which has seen certain powerful and pervasive discourses underpinning a raft of educational reforms in a number of educational settings, in particular the United Kingdom, USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. These reforms have, among other things, been characterised by a rhetoric of devolution accompanied, ironically, by an assertion by the state and other central agencies of control over the what (curriculum) and how (pedagogy) of teaching, often driven by a "standards" agenda. These changes have had an enormous impact on the nature of teachers' work through the implementation of managerial organisational practices and other accountability mechanisms. It can be argued that in such a context, professional development, in being yoked to a reform agenda, has become little more than induction into ideological compliance. This issue seeks to bring together the voices of educational researchers and reflective teachers who have investigated the changing nature of professional development across a range of educational settings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".