MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924187663 · doi:10.5539/ies.v12n4p156

The Opinions of Turkish Learning Foreign Students about the Educational System in Turkey and Their Respective Countries, Turkish Language and the Language Areas

2019· article· en· W2924187663 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Betül KERAY DİNÇEL

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurkishGrammarActive listeningNonprobability samplingForeign languagePsychologyReading (process)Mathematics educationFirst languageMulticulturalismPedagogyLinguisticsSociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, it is not enough for individuals to only speak a native language. Individuals feel the need to learn a second or more language. In the developing world, it is seen that by the help of the technology people can reach the world from home and can learn one or more languages and may even grow in a multicultural family and become bilingual. In this research, it is aimed to investigate the views of Turkish learning international students on the education system in their countries, the education system in Turkey, Turkish and the language areas they study. The purposive sampling method was used in this study. In order to collect qualified data, B2 level students who can easily express themselves in Turkish were selected and interviewed. The research survey was applied to 30 students who were volunteers. To obtain in-depth information, the semi-structured interview method was decided to be used. In this study, it is seen that Turkmen students are not satisfied with the education system in their country while Azerbaijanis are satisfied and both groups liked the education system in Turkey. It is determined that the learners have positive and beautiful thoughts about Turkish. In terms of linguistic areas they do not find listening necessary, they do not mind much about reading, and on the contrary, they care a lot about speaking, and they give importance to writing and grammar, though they have difficulties in both.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.399 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducational Methods and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207