PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a teacher educator, a 2-year leave in Australia inspired her to replicate in Canada an Australian penpal project in which preservice elementary teachers wrote to school children who answered the letters and eventually met their penpals. Her preservice secondary teachers, English majors, wrote to eighth-grade students taught by one of her ex-graduate students. The hope was that both groups of students would find a context for writing to real audiences for real purposes. The suburban middle school which the youngsters attended contained computer labs and is networked. An additional area of interest was to learn about middle school aged students and to have the university students "connect " with the younger students. Compatibility was crucial, and the matching of penpals proved to be extremely effective. Letters were picked up and dropped off with regularity. Time was allotted during class for reading letters. In the education class, letters often served as discussion starters. Both boys and girls, and men and women, professed to have enjoyed the project and learned from it. While they did not learn what was expected in terms of literacy, the letter exchange did promote understanding and friendship, in spite of individual differences which existed, regardless of gender or ability. (Contains nine references.) (NKA) * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can bt made * from the original document..1 r"
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.921 | 0.904 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".