<i>Teachers’ Professional Ethics</i> by Tirri and Kuusisto
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers’ Professional Ethics explores some of the psychological foundations of ethical teaching, focusing on three key dispositions: moral sensitivity, purpose, and growth mindset. While the book falls short of delivering a comprehensive framework for teacher ethics, it compellingly integrates moral and personality psychology to inform theory, research and practice in educational ethics. Drawing from the Finnish regulatory context, the book envisions ethical teaching as contributing to a professional community whose mission is to advance each student’s best educational interest and support their holistic development as persons. Its strength lies in empirically grounded chapters that explore how these psychological traits support principled reasoning and professional reflection. However, the book’s conceptual clarity is hampered by unaddressed ambiguities about its audience, scope, and theoretical positioning. At times, it also overlooks critical perspectives on the feasibility and philosophical assumptions of certain ideas developed in the book. Despite these limitations, the book is a valuable contribution to educational ethics, expanding the discourse beyond justice, moral modeling, and deontology by demonstrating how psychological research can illuminate ethical challenges in teaching.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it