MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6980417963

The Career Experiences of Noninstructional Itinerant Staff in K–12 Public Schools with Demonstrated Longevity

2023· article· en· W6980417963 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSEU FIRE Scholars (Southeastern University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicResearch Data Management Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Work (physics)Economic shortageScheduleQualitative researchFace (sociological concept)Work scheduleQuarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shortages in noninstructional itinerant staff (school nurses, school psychologists, school social workers) have been especially difficult for K–12 public school districts, as these individuals have critical responsibilities within the school setting that they are uniquely qualified to complete. Noninstructional itinerant employees face challenges such as isolation, role confusion, and high workloads that professionals who work in other settings or instructional colleagues may not encounter. They may also be impacted by their responsibilities related to meeting the increasing mental health needs of the students they support. The aim of this qualitative research study was to consider the experiences of 14 noninstructional itinerant professionals - five school nurses, five school psychologists, and four school social workers - who have been employed in the same K-12 public school setting for at least 10 years. Several themes emerged as the findings of the study: passion/purpose, expertise, working conditions, connections, and personal characteristics. A majority of the noninstitutional itinerants in this study reported finding deep purpose in their work and having a long-term impact on the lives of students. For most professionals, this factor may mitigate adverse working conditions such as lower pay and higher caseloads. In the area of working conditions, the school schedule emerged as a leading motivator, as it provided for a better work-life balance. Another dominant factor was connections with administration, which influenced the level of inclusion, provision of adequate workspace, and professional input. The personal factors that impacted longevity were the noninstructional itinerants’ level of flexibility and resiliency.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSEU FIRE Scholars (Southeastern University)Same topicResearch Data Management PracticesFrench-language works237,207