The Opinions of Administrators about In-Service Training Related to the Administration and Investigation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it