MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409956187 · doi:10.1111/mbe.70004

Factors that Facilitate or Impede the Implementation of Neuroeducational Principles: Perspectives from Preschool and Primary School Teachers

2025· article· en· W4409956187 on OpenAlexafffund
Élisabeth Bélanger, Sophie McMullin, Elisabeth Hould, Lorie‐Marlène Brault Foisy, Steve Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueMind Brain and Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsPsychologyMathematics educationDevelopmental psychologyPedagogyPrimary (astronomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Through professional learning communities comprising preschool and primary school teachers, we investigated factors that facilitate or impede the implementation of neuroeducational principles, including repeated neuronal activation, active learning, spaced learning, feedback and mindset. Findings from this small‐scale qualitative study indicate that general factors, such as classroom management and curriculum overload, may impede the translation of research knowledge into teaching practice. Moreover, our study revealed that teachers also encounter principle‐specific barriers. These findings underscore the necessity for sustained implementation, as the impact on learning outcomes may not be immediately evident, even when applying well‐established principles such as spaced learning and feedback.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMind Brain and EducationSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207