Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships are the heart and soul of what we do as educators, researchers, scholars and practitioners, including developing relationships with those with whom we work, research, write, serve and teach.From our perspective as Editors of the Comparative and International Education journal (CIE), we aim to develop productive and professional relationships with our authors and reviewers as the basis of good scholarly publishing.We also value deeply the relationships we have built with the CIE Editorial Board and the Executive Board of the Comparative and International Education Society of Canada (CIESC), both bodies which have shown great support for the CIE journal.Last, but not least, we appreciate being able to connect, through our journal, with our diverse readers across Canada and all over the globe!What is interesting about the articles in this issue is that they all attend to the notion of relationships and relationship-building.The first two articles are about overseas programs that involve Canadians and those from the host country.In 'Multi-stakeholder Partnership in Teacher Education and Development' authors Linyuan Guo-Brennan, Carolyn Francis and Elizabeth Townsend explore the relationships that developed between Canadian and Kenyan educators that helped make an international teaching practicum a reciprocal professional development opportunity.In the next article, 'Collaborating in (mis)translation: Opportunities lost and found during a multi-year exchange program between Canada and China', authors Terry Sifton, Glenn Rideout, and Jonathan Bayley also discuss the importance of relationship building, but within the context of a Canadian-Chinese multi-year exchange program.Stéphane Cyr, Annie Savard and Emna Braham in their article entitled "Analysis of a Pilot Integration Project of a Situation-Based Approach in Primary School of the Democratic Republic of the Congo" explore how relationships are central to implementing a pilot project within the context of educational reform.The project described in their article is the product of a multinational collaboration between: the Consortium for International Development in Education (CIDE), a Canadian company involved in the fields of international development, education and workforce development; the Directorate of School Programmes and Pedagogical Materials of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and UNICEF.The next two articles focus our attention on school-based education and the ways in which we can support children from diverse backgrounds.In 'Somali Refugee Students in Canadian Schools: Pre-Migration Experiences and Challenges in Refugee Camps', Mohamad Ayoub and George Zhou explore the pre-migration experiences of Somali refugee children and they note the importance, as researchers, of developing positive relationships with the students in the study, their parents, and other organization members, based on trust and respect.On the other hand, Xuemei Li, Antoniette Doyle, Maureen Lymburner and Needal Yasin Ghadi, in their study on 'Parental Support for Newcomer Children's Education in a Smaller Centre' found a disconnect between newcomer parents and the school community, which prevented relationship building.Theresa Papp, in her study on 'Teacher strategies to improve education outcomes for Indigenous students' makes it clear that relationship-based pedagogy is central to the success of Māori students in New Zealand schools.And finally, Emma Sabzalieva in her article, 'Engaging with tradition?How history shapes engagement with local communities in universities in England and Ontario, Canada' explores how constructive relationships help to shape engagement between universities and their local communities in productive ways.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.024 |
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".