Bibliographic record
Abstract
This three-year study examined ways in which race mediates the process of learning to teach. The innovation of pairing racial minority and dominant group teacher candidates in field-based practica was based on the rationale that such collaboration would enrich the pedagogical process with different perspectives, traditions, resources, and experiences from which teacher candidates, associate teachers, and students would benefit. The findings revealed that such partnerships broke down some racial barriers, tackled sensitive racial and cultural issues, helped in the acquisition of awareness and competence to function in cross-race domains, and laid the foundation for long-term social and professional relationships. On the other hand, the study uncovered an institutional culture that interpreted racial difference as deficit and generated paralytic anxiety for candidates of color, marginalizing them in the communication process. Such institutional and personal responses limited the potential of such partnerships as a collegial enterprise. While dominant group partners gained valuable insights into how racism operates in institutional structures, candidates of color often ended up as disempowered apprentices with their expectations seriously compromised and their long-term objectives to transform the teaching profession immeasurably jeopardized.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".