MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128791044 · doi:10.20308/ejpe.65146

The Symmetry and Packing Fraction of The Body Centered Tetragonal Structure

2013· article· en· W2128791044 on OpenAlexaff
R. A. Dunlap

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal Of Physics Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationScience educationPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Natural (archaeology)PedagogyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Students’ attitudes towards natural science constitute an important area in science education as fewer students are interested in natural science and they do not choose corresponding science disciplines in postsecondary education. The current study reports preliminary results of a survey on high school students’ interests and attitudes towards science topics according to their genders, grades, and parents’ educational levels. This is part of a large project, an evidence-based research project to explore why students choose particular professions in college as well as factors that affect their decisions. Data were collected by means of a questionnaire at eight higher secondary school campuses in Turkey. A total of 422 students participated in the study. Of them, 162 were seniors and 260 were high school graduates.  The results of the study revealed that some degree of relationship exists between students’ attitudes towards science and corresponding variables: science interests, genders, grades, and parents’ educational levels. In conclusion, the current study revealed participants’ interests in various science branches and their relationships with factors such as genders, grades, and parents’ educational levels and occupations. Students at high school level showed a relatively high interest level in all disciplines of science.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal Of Physics EducationSame topicScience Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207