Pedagogical Conditions of the Formation of Value Attitude to Another Person in Teenagers of Comprehensive Boarding Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article gives a theoretically substantiated pedagogical conditions of the formation of a value attitude to another person in teenagers of boarding schools such as: the development and the implementation of the content, forms and methods of the formation of a value attitude to another person in teenagers of boarding schools; the involvement of teenagers of boarding schools to humane-oriented activities; the humanisation of relations within the system pedagogue-student, student-student; the enhancement of the level of the readiness of teachers of boarding schools to the formation of a value attitude to another person in teenagers. The formation of a value attitude to another person in teenagers of boarding schools includes: the expansion of boarding schools teenagers' ethic knowledge about the respect to dignity, benevolence, equal rights, self-sufficiency, reasonableness; the formation of positive motivation among teenagers of boarding schools; skills of self-readiness and the readiness to a constructive dialogue. The development and the implementation of the content, forms and methods of the formation of a value attitude to another person was done in various ways such as: conducting educative hours, philosophical classes, movie discussions, the discussion of stories and books, a training, individual consultations, quizzes, talks, drawings exhibitions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".