The Metaphors of Candidte Philosophy Group Teacher Regarding the Concept of ‘Mind’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to determine what the metaphors of the candidate philosophy group teachers regarding the concept of mind and understand the related metaphors by means of gathering the metaphors expressed under certain categories. Phenomenology, one of the qualitative research designs, was used in the current study. The working group was made up of the students having pedagogical formation at Gazi University in the academic year of 2017-2018 and the last year students studying Philosophy Group Teaching at Gazi University. In this sense, the study was applied to total 85 people. Qualitative data collection techniques were used in the research. Data collection tool was applied to the participants by the researchers. In this sense, 62 valid metaphors were produced out of 85 candidate teachers. The metaphors produced were gathered under 10 categories as mind as a guide, mind as a basic element, mind as suitability for the purpose, mind as a working and developing structure, mind as a storage, mind as showing the reality, mind as an illuminator, mind as a valuable competence, mind as a limitless competence and the unclassified.In the order of metaphors produced mostly by the candidate philosophy group teachers participating the research, mind as a guide was in the first place at the rate of 17.3%. Mind as a basic element was in the second category with a rate of 16% and it was followed by mind as suitability for the purpose and mind as a working and developing structure with a rate of 12%.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".