The Effect of School Design on Student Performance
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
<p class="apa">The present study aims at exploring the influence of school design on student performance. The participants consisted of 150 students who studied at two Iranian public school and private school in Mashhad City. School Design and Planning Laboratory (SDPL) model of Georgia University (and Tanner (2009)) was used as an appraisal indicator of school design and some of its design characteristics such as unrestricted and functional views, indoor and outdoor spaces, and natural life were explained to students. In addition, student performance, defined by the average of their final achievement scores, was compared to measures of school environmental characteristics. To this end, design characteristics of these schools and students’ performances have been studied. Quantitative data, subjected to a set of descriptive statistics, showed that school design was a strong factor for students of private school. In fact, the finding indicated that characteristics of physical learning space and deign of private school had fundamental effects on student performance. That is, learning space as a strong component can motivate students to study and progress.</p>
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it