Student Views about the Public Spot Advertisement Signs in the Context of Lifelong Learning (The Example of Reading Culture Themed Public Spot Advertisement)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It’s important that the messages and information in the public spot advertisements that is wanted to be conveyed to the individuals to be reached at the desired level and an asymmetric structure existing between the message prepared with a fictional structure and the perception between the message and the receiving party. Because, a decent perceptional connection between the receiving party and the fictionalized message shows the message has reached its purpose normally. From this angle, there’s an important connection between the public spot advertisements which has the purpose of creating a common consciousness and the concept of lifelong learning. In this research it’s aimed that the student views about lifelong learning and public spot advertising signs in the example of “Reading Culture Themed Public Spot Advertisement” to be examined. In the research phenomenology which is one of the qualitative research patterns has been used. The working group has been established with the method of criterion sampling and a research has been conducted with 9 volunteering participants. For data collection interview forms have been used and the data has been analysed with the method of descriptive analysis. In the research, it has been revived that public spot advertisements contribute to the lifelong learning of the participants. As a result of the analysis conducted in the research, the themes of lifelong learning, education-themed public spot advertisements, acquirement of lifelong learning experience and its contribution to the educational process, sharing, attitudes, visual coding, book-reading, attention and slogans have been arisen. In the research, significant differences haven’t occurred between positive and negative views of the participants according to the slogans broadcasted at the end of the public spot advertisements, however it’s been determined that there are positive critical approaches that the slogans are successfully conveying the messages expected to be given. More public spot advertisements to be prepared and working on social awareness on this subject has been suggested.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".