MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396771732 · doi:10.1080/13603116.2024.2343089

Exploring Norwegian teachers’ perceptions of shy students at recess and their strategic responses

2024· article· en· W4396771732 on OpenAlexaff
Geir Nyborg, Liv Heidi Mjelve, Robert J. Coplan, Anne Edwards, W. Ray Crozier

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Inclusive Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTeacher Education and Leadership Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsNorwegianPerceptionPsychologyPedagogyMainstreamingMathematics educationSpecial education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recess (break times) during the school day offers children opportunities for peer interactions which enrich social development. For shy children, however, these periods can produce anxiety, leading to withdrawal and onlooker behaviour. The analysis reported here is from a national study of how Norwegian elementary school teachers support the engagement of shy children in school life. Nineteen teachers with recognised success with shy students were interviewed to elicit their interpretations of shy children’s behaviour and their strategies with them. Qualitative analyses found that these teachers recognised that recess was integral to creating inclusive schools, took the perspectives of shy children, and ascribed anxiety-related emotions to them. Teachers also mentioned that asking other children to include them in activities left shy children feeling pitied. However, giving designated roles to the child; allowing them to stay inside with friends to build real friendships; and starting playful activities with the child that attracted other children were all described as successful strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Inclusive EducationSame topicTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesFrench-language works237,207