MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387935846 · doi:10.22533/at.ed.5583402319106

SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION: THEORETICAL REFLECTIONS IN BASIC EDUCATION

2023· article· en· W4387935846 on OpenAlexaff
Roberto Carlos Ramos, Marina Camargo Mincato, Gêise Rúbia de Souza Ortiz, Caroline Janaíni Silva de Ávila

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human Sciences Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPedagogySociologyEngineering ethicsPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bibliographic research focuses on reflection on school management and pedagogical innovation in Basic Education, with the research problem being: How do the authors address the themes arising from school management and pedagogical innovation in the context of Basic Education?Based on this problem, the objective of the research is to understand how the authors approach themes related to the relationships between school management and pedagogical innovation, in the context of Basic Education.The theoretical framework has as its structuring axis the assumptions of Lck about school management and Carbonell regarding pedagogical innovation, establishing a dialogue with other authors who discuss the themes under study.The main results are: a) School management and pedagogical innovation in the context of Basic Education, boosting the quality of education and meaningful learning; b) The importance of the dimensions of pedagogical innovation, such as the contribution to teacher training, the pedagogical sustainability of the school and the consolidation of a reflective methodology; c) Promoting the continued training of managers in different areas of school management and pedagogical innovation; d) The dissemination of school management and pedagogical innovation through the promotion of research and the publication of articles in journals and events during the research, whether book chapters and participation as speakers at congresses, seminars and panels, among others; e) Contribution to the advancement of discussions, in academic-scientific terms regarding the investigative theme of the research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.511
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.151 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Human Sciences ResearchSame topicTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207