Evaluation of the Effects of Pyramid Model Training on the Attitudes and Practices of Early Childhood Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of the pyramid model (PM) in promoting young children’s social-emotional competence and reducing challenging behaviours. In the province of Quebec (Canada), as in many other regions, many children with special needs are integrated into early childhood settings where educators have not had specific training in managing challenging behaviours. The current project’s objective was to evaluate, using a mixed-methods design, the effects of a two-day training session in PM practices provided to 33 educators working in inclusive early childhood settings in the province of Quebec. Before the session, educators had reported that inclusion is beneficial for the child but not for the early childhood educator, demonstrating a need for more training and resources to be provided to early childhood educators. Following the session, their perceptions of the usefulness and social validity of the training in PM were positive, and their implementation of PM practices significantly increased. Their perceptions of how inclusion affected them also became more positive; however, no differences were found in their overall attitudes when comparing results from pre- to post-test, indicating the need for further support.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".