STUDENT, TEACHER AND PARENT PERSPECTIVES\nON SENIOR CYCLE EDUCATION. ESRI RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 94 NOVEMBER 2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of senior cycle has been subject to much policy discussion. Most\nrecently, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) initiated a\nreview of senior cycle, with a scoping phase followed by consultation with casestudy\nschools and national seminars. Forty-one schools were involved in this\nprocess; they conducted consultations with staff and parents and NCCA staff\ncarried out focus group interviews with junior and senior cycle students. This\nreport draws on the two phases of the school-based consultation to document\nteacher, parent and student perspectives on the current senior cycle and potential\ndirections for change. Because the schools volunteered for involvement, there\nshould be caution in generalising to the broader population of schools.\nNonetheless, the findings yield important insights into the benefits and challenges\nof senior cycle, closely mirroring findings from previous Irish research.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".