Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was 1) to compare and analyze the current National Art Curriculum of five different countries, The Republic of Korea, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Canada and Australia, focusing on its implication on art subjects, including visual arts and studio arts, provided and its contents for senior high school level. and 2) to provide some suggestions for researches on the curriculum development. This study included 1) the 7th Korean National Art Curriculum in high school level, 2) the investigation of the National, the States’ and each senior high school’s art curriculum in visual arts area in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia, 6) the suggestions for the new model for the next Korean National Art Curriculum. For the Comparison, eleven, five, four and three senior high schools in USA, UK, Canada and Australia, respectively, were selected and compared. Major aspects of the differences of the art curriculums of five countries in this study are as follows: there have been a lot of elective subjects provided in foreign countries except Korea, and the curriculum system in schools differed each by each. The findings and the recommendations of this study are as follows; 1) a strong relationship between Art for G 3-8 and art electives in senior high in Korea should be provided and presented, 2) the importance of the elective art curriculum system design should be discussed for the harmony of each electives in advance, 3) the proper and suitable range and the level of curriculum contents in its development should be considered and discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".