The Opinions of Administrators about In-Service Training Related to the Administration and Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to determine the opinions of administrators of National Education Directiorate, School Directors and Vice-school Directors about the in-service activities and the system of in-service training programs related to work security. Moreover, it is investigated the level of the knowledge whether in-service training ignores professional diseases, the participant of in-service trainees are aware of the difference between the participation and success certificates that they deserved at the end of the training and there is a lost of expectations on the trainees related to prove the gainings that they got through the training. To determine the knowledge level of the administrators on in-service training related to administration and investigation, they were given a data obtaining tool including knowledge about in-service training. The sample of the research consists of 30 school directors and 75 vice school directors, total 105 administrators working in different schools of Ağrı National Education Directoriate. According to the findings of the research, it is seen that the administrators answered the questions including the knowledge on in-service training in changing rates. At the end of the research, it is realized that the administrators were qualified with the rates between 29% and 53% about the in-service training related to administration and investigation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".