MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108462860 · doi:10.15760/nwjte.2025.20.2.3

Leveraging Student Data to Assess, Inform, and Develop Teachers Capacities

2025· article· W7108462860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthwest Journal of Teacher Education · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCollaborative Teaching and Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural competenceCultural diversityChecklistPerceptionPrivilege (computing)MulticulturalismCompetence (human resources)Cultural analysisCultural humility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This quantitative study analyzed 47 survey responses to gauge in-service, pre-licensed teacher, and paraprofessional perceptions of cultural competency. Participants responded to the Central Vancouver Island Multicultural Society’s Cultural Competence Self-Assessment Checklist (Alpha = 0.7) to explore their awareness, knowledge, and skills in cultural competency. Moreover, through the application of Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) as a theoretical framework, this study highlighted how these perceptions related to culturally responsive teaching and provided several implications for their future preparation to further develop their cultural competency through the tenets of CRT. The analysis identified participant unfamiliarity with privilege and its impact, as well as the multidimensional nature of culture. Additionally, analysis highlighted a lack of understanding around how to authentically engage with students and their families in an inclusive and comprehensive orientation. These findings indicated several potential considerations for their preparation moving forward to better develop their cultural competencies and culturally responsive teaching.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthwest Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicCollaborative Teaching and InclusionFrench-language works237,207