Gifted Preschoolers: Parent and teacher views on identification, early admission, and programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An exploration of the issues and concerns of the parents of gifted preschoolers and preschool/kindergarten teachers surrounding early identification and programming for giftedness was undertaken using a survey. The majority of parents reported that early identification can (91%) and should (74%) be done, white teachers acknowledged each at 78% and 50% respectively. The practice of differentiated curriculum was supported by 76% of parents and 32% of teachers surveyed, while the educational option of early entrance was supported by 37% of parents and 7% of teachers. The physical domain was superseded by both social‐emotional and intellectual domains in the levels of importance for early entrance consideration by both respondent groups. Parental requests for information were categorized as resources for additional challenge, disciplinary techniques, educational options, and parenting guidelines. Teachers required information on balancing differing development rates and supportive programming. A number of professionals were acknowledged by both groups as beneficial to acquiring requested information, including school staff, support groups, medical staff, psychologists, the media, and political lobbyists.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".