MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7006310612

Teaching professional identity of candidates for secondary school teachers

2010· article· en· W7006310612 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchool teachersIdentity (music)Professional developmentQuarter (Canadian coin)Initial trainingTraining (meteorology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the line of investigation over teacher’s thinking, we showwith this paper the results obtained from a research which aim was to explore the ideas and motivation of future secondary school teachers towards the teacher profession and the pedagogic training needed for being teacher in this educational stage. Through the Questionnaire about interest to teaching and initial training (Pontes, Ariza y Sánchez, 2010) we have explored the opinions of 353students of the course of initial training for teachers, comprising a quarter of the students of the past two courses of the University of Cordoba and being the last students of the CAP and the first of the Master degree. Among the results we have found that professional interests towards teaching obey to different reasons and that these reasons are related to diverse prior conceptions about the teacherprofession and its training. The results obtained contribute to the advance of the investigation about initial development of the teaching professional identity of training teachers and provide with some keys for the improvement of the initial training process of the secondary school teachers.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy→French-language works237,207→