Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appraisal has, for many years, been seen as something ‘done’ to teachers. It has simply been that bit extra that needed to be completed each year to ensure teachers could teach one more year. It was seen as having little benefit orsignificance, simply being a ‘tick box’ exercise. This article reports on a study aimed to change this view and give teachers ownership of the appraisal process through self-directed professional development within a collaborative and collegial environment. The study demonstrated the need for teachers to direct their own professional development and learning within an open and supportive environment where they felt safe to ‘take a chance’. In enabling and supportingteachers to do this, a structured portfolio ‘skeleton’ was developed. Teachers were then able to ‘flesh out’ and personalise their portfolios in order to demonstrate their individual professional practice.
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 | 0.039 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".