Metaphoric Perception of Gifted Students about Physical Education Course and Physical Education Teachers
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
It is to determine the perception of the gifted students who participate to “Science and Art Center” about “Physical Education Course” and “Physical Education Teachers” via metaphors. The working group of the research consists of 48 students who participate Science and Art Center in 2014-2015 school years. Among the purposive sampling methods, criterion sampling method is used in choosing the working group. In the research, among the qualitative research approaches, phenomenological design is used. The data is gathered by semi-structured metaphor form and gathered data have been subjected to content analysis. It was seen that, toward the physical education, they described it in a way that includes positive qualifications as a good lecture, a mean of freedom, a source of life, an educating activity, a competition area and a natural event. It was determined that generally the students’ perception towards physical education teachers are positive and they are described as a mentor, compassionate, fun, capable, knowing, hard-working and strong. It can be said that the students see the physical education more as a mean to have fun, to have great time and to move freely. The physical education teacher is also described as a mentor, compassionate and fun person.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it