The Construction of Teachers' Paradoxical Interests by Teacher Union Leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this case study, the author examines (1) bow leaders construct the relationship between teachers' self-interests and teachers' broader educational interests and (2) the internal and external factors that influence how teacher union leaders pursue union interests. Union leaders, construct variable paradoxical relationships between teachers' self-interests and broader educational interests. The various perspectives are examined using Ford and Backoff's framework of paradox construction (Ford, J., & Backoff, R. (1998). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management ) Findings indicate that most union leaders.focus on a dialectic relationship between economic welfare and professional development, which they believe leads to education quality. Long-term, moral purposes related to quality education and social justice encourage the union to transcend a dialectic construction of the paradox. The realities of internal and external pressures lead to dynamic shifts in emphasis between basic, short-term interests and long-term, higher order interests, and make it difficult for the union to permanently transcend current constructions of the paradox. Threats from the provincial government during the. 1990s caused the union to focus" on basic, short-term self-interests.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".