Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was that verify the difference of pro-environmental behavior according to be present or not of experience environmental education for developing pro-environmental and show basic material to prepare efficient operation plans of experience environmental education is based on factor which effect of pro-environmental behavior difference according to the types. Elementary schools were divided through existence and nonexistence of an experience environmental education than I was checked up the pro-environmental behavior of students, who joined in different environmental educations each other. It was analysis by dividing into an environmental education of school, an educator (teacher, environmental-interpreter), and fields for environmental education (school inside and outside) to know types of experience environmental education. In result, elementary schoolers who experienced an experience environmental education at school class, had higher an environment-friendly behavior and elementary schoolers, who experienced an experience environmental education at class from environmental-interpreter, had higher an environment-friendly behavior by and large. As a result, this study showed that the area based on their residential quarter and an experience environmental education with realistic plans to connect with social environmental education for developing pro-environmental carrying out the most positive effect.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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 it