MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1874931337 · doi:10.5539/jel.v4n2p1

A Study of the Effects of Business Training on the Attitude towards Major Selection of Secondary Level Male Students in Iran

2015· article· en· W1874931337 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fateme Samiee, Zahra Sadeghian, Nahid Akrami, Mehdi Keikhosro Kiani, Mina Golkian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySelection (genetic algorithm)CurriculumSignificant differenceControl (management)PopulationTest (biology)Medical educationJob marketSample (material)Mathematics educationPedagogyDemographyMedicineManagementSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aimed to study the effect of business education on the attitudes of the secondary school male student towards major selection. The population of the study were all male secondary students in Isfahan in the year 2013/2015. The sample was a group of 44 students were placed in the experimental and 44 in the control group. In this study, the researcher-made questionnaire was used which involved 5 dimensions, i.e., personal interest, usefulness, job market, available facilities and encouragement by society. In this study, business skills were taught during eight 75-min sessions, depending on the students’ tiredness, curriculum and general conditions of the schools. The results of the independent samples T-test showed that there is a significant difference between the student’s attitudes towards major selection in each of the experimental and control groups (p<0.05). Therefore, the experimental group got higher scores in each of the following dimensions: personal interest, usefulness, job market, available resources and encouragement by society. Thus, they can have a more realistic view of major selection and take into consideration more factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207