MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7109756835 · doi:10.11575/prism/50793

Early Career Supports for Teachers in Alberta

2025· other· en· W7109756835 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForegroundingPerceptionProfessional developmentQualitative researchFace (sociological concept)Class (philosophy)Job satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Job satisfaction and retention among teachers are critical issues globally, yet limited research has examined how to effectively support teachers during the early years of their careers, particularly beyond the first year. In Alberta, Canada, teachers face escalating workloads, large class sizes, and inadequate resources, creating a pressing need to understand which early career supports foster job satisfaction and retention. This study aims to investigate new teachers’ perceptions of professional supports accessed during their first five years in the profession, addressing the following main question: what are new teachers' perceptions about the early career supports that are helping them as they transition into the teaching profession? Using a case study approach, this research combines quantitative surveys with semi-structured interviews and qualitative artifacts to capture in-depth perspectives from new teachers. By foregrounding teachers’ voices, this research will advance understanding of retention challenges, inform evidence-based strategies for teacher support, and contribute to scholarly literature and professional practice in teacher education and early career development.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→