Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this research were 1) to establish the community-based learning process of Sukhothai Sangkhalok ceramic work; 2) to design Sangkhalok ceramics for marketing competitiveness and community economic development; and 3) to evaluate the learning outcome of student with the community on Sukhothai Sankhalok designs. The research involved a simple-random sample of 40 second year students majoring product and packaging design of the Department of Art and Design. The community-based learning model in Sukhothai Sankhalok ceramic work as a research tool consisted of the learning plan, activities, and evaluation form. The researcher undertook a field work to collect data from the 3 Sangkhalok ceramics manufacturers in Sukhothai province, namely: 1) Suthep Sangkhalok, Tambon Muang Kao, Amphur Muang Suthothai; 2) Usa Sangkhalok Tambon Muang Kao, Amphur Muang Suthothai 3) Bua Sangkhalok, Tambon Muang Kao, Amphur Muang Suthothai. The data analysis focused on 2 areas, i.e. the analysis of ceramics community on its history, community’s operation model, and the analysis of students’ learning outcome. The analysis employed descriptive statistics and a comparison of learning outcomes against the 80 % criterion with one-sample statistics. The findings suggested that the community-based learning model of Sukhothai Sangkhaloke ceramic work as obtained in this research comprised 4 components: 1) strengthening community economics and community enterprise development; 2) promoting participatory learning process; 3) naintaining and building the capacity of local wisdom, and 4) building network and collaboration to link the knowledge and local wisdom. The Sangkhalok ceramic design works were in 3 collections: 1) Sangkhalok ceramics in swan shape with decorating technique of color painting under the glaze, in 4 styles, and 2) Sangkhalok ceramics in dragon shape with decorating technique of gold color water drawing, in 4 styles, and 3) Sangkhalok in Ganesh shape, in 3 styles. Students who designed the ceramics by the concept of Sukhothai ceramic art model showed the learning outcome with average scores at 84.50 % which was higher than the set criterion at 0.05 level of significance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".