MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2221503187

Esinemiskostüümide valmimisprotsessi analüüs akrobaatikaringi "Zagadka" näitel

2015· dissertation· et· W2221503187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristina Villers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageet
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsHumanitiesPassenger transportArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loputoo valmimisprotsessi analuus akrobaatikaringi 'Zagadka' naitel eesmargiks oli analuusida ja parendada kostuumide valmimise protsessi. Toos pustitatud eesmarkide saavutamiseks teostas autor juhtumiuuringu, mille kaigus uuriti esinemiskostuumide valmimise protsessi kui tervikut. Juhtumiuuringu raames teostas too autor akrobaatikaringis vaatluse, mille kaigus kogus andmeid esinemiskostuumide valmimise protsessi kohta. Saadud andmete pohjal koostas autor voodiagrammi ja selgitas valja esinemiskostuumide valmimisprotsessi etapid. Jargmiseks viis too autor labi opetajatega intervjuu, mille eesmargiks oli valja selgitada esinemiskostuumide vamimisprotsessi kitsaskohad. Taiendavate andmete saamiseks intervjueeris too autor ka omblejat. Juhtumiuuringu raames viis too autor labi ka kusitluse lastevanemate seas, mille eesmargiks oli valja selgitada lastevanemate noudmised ja uldine rahulolu esinemiskostuumidega. Akrobaatikaringi „Zagadka“ koige sobilikuma esinemiskostuumi tegumoe valja selgitamiseks analuusis too autor viimase viiel aastal ommeldud kostuumide juurdeloikus akte, mille kaigus selgitati valja akrobaatikaringile sobilikum kostuumi tegumood, sobilikumad materjalid ning vajaminevad seadmed nende omblemiseks. Uuringute kaigus selgus, et esinemiskostuumide valmimisprotsessis olevate osapoolte vahel puudub piisav koostoo, mille tulemusel ei vasta valmis ommeldud kostuumid esialgsele kavandile. Seni ommeldud kostuumidega ollakse uldiselt rahul, kostuumidega rahulolunaitaja lastevanemate seas on 3,6 skaalal 1-5 uhest viieni. Lastevanemate kusitlusest selgusid kostuumide olulisemad omadused, kostuumide juures on koige olulisemaks teguriks mugavus ja vastupidavus, mille uhendusomblused ei hargne ega katke esinemise aeg. Esinemiskostuumide mugavuse tagavad vastavalt etteastele valitud kostuumi tegumood, materjalid, loiked, mis sobivad tantsustiiliga ning voimaldavad tantsijal neid sooritada ilma ebamugavust tundmata, ei hooru ega pigista. Kostuumid peaksid olema moodsad ja laval efektsed valja nagema. Koige vahem olulisemaks hinnati kostuumi hinda. Koige sobilikumaks esinemiskostuumiks on liibuva tegumoega roivad, kas trikoo, liibuv kombinesoon ning retuusid sargi voi pluusiga. Analuusi kaigus selgus ka, et sageli ei vasta kostuumide materjalid tantsuseadele, kuna kangad kostuumide jaoks ostetakse opetaja poolt ilma omblejaga konsulteerimata. Intervjuust omblejaga selgus, et kostuumide tellimuse etteteatamise aeg on liiga luhike, monikord vaid nadal aega enne plaanitavat esinemist.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.013

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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 topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207