MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493718128 · doi:10.5539/ass.v11n21p39

Ethical Sustainability in Scene Design of Iranian Children TV Shows

2015· article· en· W1493718128 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bushra Abbasi, Mojtaba Ansari

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityComputer scienceManagement scienceDesign elements and principlesEngineering ethicsField (mathematics)Descriptive researchEthical issuesSociologySocial scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the most efficient cognition source of children, TV programs can play an important role in fostering the priorities of Ethical Sustainability. Lack of attention in the field of scene design is addressing the absence of ethical sustainability requirements in the scene design principles. But, do the scene design principles in Iran have shortcomings? The aim of this paper is to define these shortcomings on the basis of ethical sustainability and present recommendations which can be considered by Iranian scene designers. The adopted methodology of research is case study, answering the research questions via qualitative data collection and descriptive-analytical technique. To achieve the aim of the research, the importance of ethical sustainability in the scene design of children TV shows is highlighted and the effect of design principles established by Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Organization are reviewed through relevant literature and reliable documents. Then, through a comparison between Sustainable Principles of Hannover and the mentioned Iranian design principles on the basis of sustainable relations, shortcomings of principles are discovered. In addition, the selected case study of the research is the scene of “Fitileh TV show” which was successfully designed in accordance to the mentioned Iranian design principles. The current practice of established design principles are examined through direct observation and visual evaluation and presented in a clear view. The effects of the shortcomings of the afore-mentioned design principles on the designed scene are evaluated afterwards and the recommendations are presented.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicEnvironmental Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207