MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783823220 · doi:10.5539/jel.v7n2p230

A Study on Developing Learning Strategies in Violin Education

2018· article· en· W2783823220 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Şenol Afacan, Şeyda Çilden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMusic Education and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGazi Üniversitesi
KeywordsLikert scaleViolinCronbach's alphaInternal consistencyScale (ratio)Mathematics educationGeographyPsychologyHumanitiesMathematicsCartographyArtStatisticsArt history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted for the purpose of developing a valid and reliable learning strategies scale for students receiving violin education in Departments of Music at Fine Arts High Schools. The scale was applied to 391 violin students receiving education in the 11th and 12th grades in Departments of Music at Fine Arts High Schools in the provinces of Ankara, Eskişehir, Kayseri, Konya, Kırıkkale, Sivas, Niğde, Adana, Mersin, Isparta, Hatay, Osmaniye, İzmir, Aydın, Denizli, Kütahya, Manisa, Muğla, Bursa, İstanbul, Balıkesir, Çanakkale, Edirne, Tekirdağ, Samsun, Trabzon, Ordu, Bolu, Tokat, Malatya, Erzurum and Van. The 5-point Likert scale consists of 67 items. The data obtained after applying the scale were transferred to the SPSS Package Software. Explanatory factor analysis was then carried out on the basis of the data. As a result of the explanatory factor analysis, it was determined that the scale had six factors. In addition, the Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.966.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.379 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicMusic Education and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207