Which Perceptions Do We Have Related to Our Rights as Child? Child Rights from the Perspective of Primary School Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out with the goal of investigation of perceptions and views which are related to children’s rights of forth grade primary school students. The research was designed properly to qualitative research approach. This research was made with 156 4th grade students. In determining of the research group, criterion sampling technique was used. In the process of getting research data, survey form, written documents and semi-structured interview form were used. The research data were analyzed with content analysis method. As a result of research, it was determined that children indicated that they have some rights such as have adequate nutrition, be respected by everyone, play games, feel being loved and attract attention, have fun and get qualified education. On the other hand, some rights such as make decisions and choices independently on issues related to self, live, shelter, protect themselves from all kinds of danger and get information are expressed by participants more less than other rights. In addition to this, it was determined that some responsibilities are perceived as rights by children. Consequently, it was determined that the children have not adequate awareness about own rights. Depending on the research results it was suggested that awareness and perceptions of students related to own rights should improved with qualified and entertaining children’s rights education.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".