MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2882987012 · doi:10.5539/hes.v8n3p34

Investigation of the Metaphorical Perceptions of the Gifted Students Related to the Concept of Science and Art Center (SAC)

2018· article· en· W2882987012 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
İsmail Satmaz, Hasan Said Tortop, Elmaziye Temiz

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyMathematics educationQualitative researchLearning environmentLiteral and figurative languageMetaphorPedagogyMedical educationSociologySocial scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to reveal the metaphorical perceptions related to the concept of Science and Art Center (SAC,) which is a state institution where the gifted students in Turkey receive support for their education. For this purpose, gifted students were asked to produce metaphors about SAC concepts. The participants of the research are 59 students attending Çanakkale SAC in Çanakkale city, Turkey. However, 52 students areincluded in the study. The research is based on the phenomenological approach of qualitative research methods. The data of the study were collected by metaphor questionnaire consisting of two parts. The collected data were analyzed by content analysis method. In[HST1] the direction of the data obtained from the research, the perceptions of SAC of the gifted students were revealed. The perceptions of gifted students in the study were examined in terms of changes in gender and the education program they were enrolled. It has been found that gifted students have perceptions related to SAC in seven categories: safe and relaxing environment, source and conveyor of information, developer and guiding, entertaining learning environment, beneficial learning environment, astonishing learning environment and boring learning environment. Two different data coding systems were used to reveal 7 different categories, The result was checked in accordance with Miles and Huberman reliability coefficent and the result was 91%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEducation Practices and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207