The Development of a Secondary School Health Assessment Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to: 1) involved a survey of information relating to secondary school health, 2) involved the construction of a model of health assessment and a handbook for using the model in secondary school, 3) develop an assessment model for secondary school. The research included 3 phases. (1) involved a survey of information relating to secondary school health, which was performed by analyzing the approach and reviewing the related literature. The phase also involved synthesizing the factors associated with health in secondary school. (2) involved the construction of a model of health assessment and a handbook for using the model in secondary school. (3) the health assessment model for secondary school was applied to large, medium, and small schools to evaluate the model’s validity. In addition, the assessment model was evaluated based on its utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. The research findings suggested the following: 1) The health assessment model for secondary school consisted of 4 major factors, 13 sub-factors, and 68 indicators. 2) The health assessment model for secondary school was deemed by experts to have content validity. 3) The health assessment model for secondary school was considered to have high levels of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. Considering each aspect, it was found that the aspects of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy, were “High” for every aspect.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".