MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389681656 · doi:10.54195/ijpe.18225

Reformation of Storied Assumptions of Parents and Poverty

2023· article· en· W4389681656 on OpenAlexaff
Debbie Pushor, Darlene Ciuffetelli Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal about Parents in Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeExplicationCurriculumSituatedPovertyPedagogyNarrative inquirySociologyRevelationTeacher educationMathematics educationPsychologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceLiteratureArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We begin this article by introducing research into a curriculum of parents (Pushor, 2011, 2013). We then make visible how pre-service teachers’ engagement in such a curriculum creates possibilities for teachers to actively resist deficit-based conceptualizations and to deepen their understanding of discourses of poverty and of representations of parents. The research is situated in Dewey’s (1938) foundational conception of experience as education and in Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) explication of a narrative inquiry framework comprised of stories of experience. We take up Ciuffetelli Parker’s (2013) notions – narrative reveal, narrative revelation, and narrative reformation – which we use to examine stories which illuminate one pre-service teacher’s growing understanding of the complexities of teaching in a school community affected by poverty. Using Ciuffetelli Parker’s narrative elements, we demonstrate how a teacher candidate, who experienced an explicit curriculum of parents, came to see parents affected by poverty as knowing and knowledgeable and as having an important place and voice in their children’s schooling and education

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal about Parents in EducationSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207