The Comparison of Self-Efficacy Belief Levels on Anatomy Education between the Undergraduate Students from Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Department and the Associate Students from Vocational School of Health Services in Western Black Sea Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation (PTR) undergraduate degree departments and Vocational School of Health Services (VSHS) associate degree departments train healthcare professionals, which is important for both continuance of human health and treatment of various illnesses. Anatomic structures underlie the illnesses that these departments treat and care.Therefore, the graduates of these departments should have favorable knowledge of anatomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the self-efficacy belief levels about anatomy education of PTR students as undergraduate and VSHS students as associate degree.94 students from PTR department (age: 21.94±1.19) and 100 students from VSHS (age: 20.16±1.58) have participated in the study. Data collection questionnaire (gender, age, geographical region where he/she came from, residential place) and Anatomy Self-Efficacy Belief scale (ASEB) have been implemented on the participants.As a consequence, when the Anatomy Self-Efficacy Belief levels of undergraduate and associate degree students are compared, no significant difference has been found in total (p>0,05). However, when the answers given to the questions in self-efficacy belief level test are compared separately, a significant difference has been found in 4 questions (p<0,05). The reason for this is that the students of PTR department have more hours of anatomy lesson per week compared to the students of VSHS.As ASEB gets better, profession is done better in view of anatomy. This will help the graduates of both departments do their profession better and be more helpful to their patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".