MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463685788 · doi:10.5539/jel.v5n3p205

The Acquaintance Level of Turkish Prospective Teachers with Qualified Works of Children’s Literature

2016· article· en· W2463685788 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erkan Çer, Ertuğrul Şahin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishForeknowledgePsychologyTest (biology)Quality (philosophy)Mathematics educationTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this cross-sectional study is investigate to what extent acquainted prospective Turkish teachers are with qualified works of children’s literature. A convenience sample of 146 university students studying at the Turkish teaching department at a university in the Central Black Sea Region completed a questionnaire to determine the qualified works of children’s literature about which the students knew. Firstly, books which were assessed as quality by students for primary and secondary school pupils were classified using frequencies and percentages. In the second stage of the analysis, appropriate books suiting the definition of quality books for children were selected according to Çer’s (2016a, 2016b) suggestions, and the foreknowledge levels of each student for quality books were determined. The Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis H test were performed to examine gender and grade level differences in foreknowledge levels. Results of this study showed that the level of foreknowledge of Turkish prospective teachers about quality books for children for primary and secondary school students was quite low. Additionally, being female and grade level is associated with qualified works of children’s literature which the students knew. Such that, female prospective teachers significantly more acquainted with quality books for secondary school than males and the junior and senior students were significantly more acquainted with books for primary school than the freshmen and sophomore students. Senior students were also significantly more acquainted with books for secondary school than the freshmen, sophomore and junior students.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducational Methods and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207