MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099468842

2001 Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium Teacher Education/Educator Training: Current Trends and Future Directions

2014· article· en· W7099468842 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLifelong learningProfessional developmentPlan (archaeology)Qualitative researchFaculty developmentDevelopment planPerception
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article addresses the question What approaches, experiences and resources foster lifelong learning of teachers? drawing from a qualitative study of an approach to teacher development and supervision recently mandated in Alberta: teacher professional growth plans. The study interviewed teachers, principals, and superintendents in various jurisdictions about their experiences, perceptions and challenges implementing growth plans. The article first presents significant issues in current debates about lifelong learning in general and teachers ’ professional development in particular, then describes the research findings in terms of approaches, experiences and resources that appear to best enable teachers ’ learning. The article concludes that when implemented with commitment, affirmation and collaboration, teacher professional growth plans are a positive first step towards fostering learning communities in schools. Recommendations and cautions for the development and implementation of growth plan policies are provided, based on the Alberta experience.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.023
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0160.010
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBenford’s Law and Fraud DetectionFrench-language works237,207