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
This study sought to understand reflection as a means to faculty engagement in continuing professional development (CPD) by examining faculty perceptions about reflection; reflection as a tool to facilitate responsibility and participation in professional development (PD) activities; the extent faculty members reflect on their PD needs; and how they identify PD initiatives that aim to enhance their professional growth. To examine these questions, a mixed method study was undertaken with faculty members in a Canadian higher education institution (HEI). Drawing on data from a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, the extent to which faculty members use reflection as a tool to engage in CPD was revealed. Though faculty members believe that reflection can help inform their practice and professional growth, it is used minimally to inform CPD due to the issues of time and workload, and the types of PDA supported by the college. To promote reflection among faculty members, time for reflection and training on how to engage in critical reflection is necessary. This can only be achieved within a reflective space and environment of trust, especially between faculty members and management in HEIs. With limited research examining how faculty members can identify relevant and meaningful CPD, this study provides a basis for the use of reflection as a means for them to make deliberate and systematic attempts to reflect on their practice. Through reflection, faculty members generate information and knowledge that helps them make meaning of their actions and experiences, and from which learning through meaningful CPD can continue.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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