The Qualitative Analysis of Turkish Adult Education System in Terms of Management Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">The aim of this study is to analyze the views of the administrators of public education centers in Turkey for the programs carried in their institutions in frame of the management processes which are decision-making, planning, organization, communication, coordination, affection and evaluation. For this purpose, 17 public education center administrators were interviewed. The responses that were taken have revealed that decisions are made by taking into account the needs of the trainees, the standards determined by Lifelong Learning General Directorate and the demands related to educational programs; planning is done according to reports of the commission and in frame of the criterions; for organization process, administrators fulfill all the essentials of organization process; in communication process, the administrators declare to take into consideration of the whole shareholders; for coordination process, the administrators declare that the centers experience problems especially about classrooms, trainers and material perform coordination activities in order to be able to meet these necessities; administrators use motivation techniques for both the trainees and the trainers; and lastly the administrators state that they use process evaluation and evaluate the trainees both during and at the end of the programs.</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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".