Pre-Service Elementary Mathematics Teachers’ Metaphors on Scientific Research and Foundations of Their Perceptions
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">In this study, it is aimed to investigate pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ perceptions about scientific research with metaphor analysis and determine the foundations of these perceptions. This phenomenological study was conducted with 182 participants. The data were collected with two open-ended survey forms formed for investigating the metaphors and their reasons, and the reasons which are important in shaping these perceptions. The data were analysed in descriptive and content analysis methods based on the aim of the study. The findings can be summarised as follow: The participants created 156 metaphors and the most cited metaphor is “universe”. The most distinctive features of the scientific research given by the participants were its hierarchic structure in application, presenting new knowledge and requiring much effort. The least cited feature of the research was its falsibiality. In addition, it was found that though teachers, scientific research methods course and internet are very important in the process of perception creation about scientific research, the experts in the areas have little effect on this process.</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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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