MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27873478 · doi:10.1111/zph.12314

Factors That Correlate with the Use of Technology in Georgia's Elementary Schools

2009· article· en· W27873478 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Shelley Arnett Samon

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIowa State UniversityUniversity of GuelphCornell University
KeywordsMathematics educationGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(Under the Direction of Barbara Mallory) The purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate the relationship of different factors, including leadership, on Georgia elementary teachers ’ technology use. The researcher investigated the availability and the usage of technology in Georgia elementary public schools by teachers for delivery of instruction. The researcher also investigated school principals ’ support for technology use, and school teachers ’ attitude (technology autonomy, technology self-efficacy, technology experience, and technology anxiety) in relation to technology use. Following the pilot study, questionnaire packets were mailed to third grade teachers ’ of 150 elementary schools that participated in the study. The final sample of this study consisted of 355 Georgia third grade elementary teachers. The collected data were entered in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Pearson’s correlation and regression analysis were used to determine if relationships existed between the collected data.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicGender and Technology in EducationFrench-language works237,207