MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097810135 · doi:10.5539/res.v6n2p7

Art Education and Creations of Artistic Forms. Students’ Views on the Course and Its Combination with Cultural Heritage

2014· article· en· W2097810135 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kampouropoulou Maria, Persa Fokiali, Ioanna Efstathiou, Efstathios Stefos

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural heritageContext (archaeology)Visual arts educationOrder (exchange)Visual artsMathematics educationPedagogySociologyPsychologyArtHistoryThe artsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to appoint students’ views on the lesson, “Art Education and Creations of Artistic forms”. In this context, a research was carried out at the University of the Aegean, DepArtment of Primary Education during the first semester of 2013-2014. The lectures included pArt from the basic knowledge, students’ involving in Artistic activities and exercises in Traditional Art. Most of the activities were designed to promote Cultural Heritage through Art and the final work was for them to create training manual to be used by students of Primary Education, in order to learn about the local Cultural Heritage. The questionnaire was answered by 149 students pArticipated in the research before and after the lectures and Artistic works they had to carry out. In order to extract the research results, we used statistical software SPSS v.17 offered by the School of Humanities of the University of the Aegean. The analysis showed that most of the students are positive towards following the specific course at the University and believe that it promotes Cultural Heritage and in combine with the economic, social, cultural and sustained development of the country.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207