Učestalost pojava tema odgoja i obrazovanja u programima znanstvene konferencije Lošinjski dani bioetike u razdoblju 2002.-2014.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cilj ovoga istraživanja bio je utvrditi koliko se često teme odgoja i obrazovanja pojavljuju na znanstvenoj konferenciji Lošinjski dani bioetike, kada su se počele pojavljivati, u kojem se dijelu znanstvene konferencije nalaze ta izlaganja i koliki je njihov broj. Istraživanje je provedeno kvalitativnom analizom, a uzorci su bile knjige sa sažecima izlaganja na znanstvenoj konferenciji Lošinjski dani bioetike u razdoblju od 2002. do 2014. godine, njih trinaest, i dvije knjige sa sažecima izlaganja na znanstvenoj konferenciji Dani Frane Petriša/Petrića 1998. i 2001. godine, dakle, ukupno petnaest knjižica. Izdvojena su ona izlaganja koja, prema mišljenju autora, imaju veze s temom odgoja i obrazovanja. Podaci su svrstani u tablice, nakon kojih slijedi interpretacija, a u prilogu na kraju rada nalazi se popis izdvojenih izlaganja. Rezultati istraživanja pokazuju da postoje izlaganja o temama odgoja i obrazovanja na Lošinjskim danima bioetike, iako u manjem broju, dok u ostalim izlaganjima većinom dominiraju teme o problemima koji su vezani uz medicinu.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.008 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".