Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify the metaphors that primary, secondary and high school students and classroom teacher candidates and the classroom teachers have regarding their primary school classroom teachers. The phenomenology pattern as one of the qualitative research methods was used in the research. The study group was determined by the purposeful criterion sampling method. The basic criterion in the research is that the participants are in the final grade of elementary, secondary, high school and are in the undergraduate 3rd and 4th grade students classroom teachers education program, and the class teachers who are still working. Participants' answers to the question “My primary school teacher is like ... Because ...” were analyzed both by qualitative and quantitative research methods. According to the findings of the study, 167 metaphors were produced and they were grouped under ten conceptual categories. There were no significant differences in these 10 conceptual categories regarding the elementary, secondary and high school students, university students and classroom teachers. Obtained results point out that the influences of the teachers on the individuals are evident. These results may be shared with faculties of education and help to give the teacher candidates a proper training for educating their students with positive attitudes in the future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".