PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS' ABSTRACTION LEVELS OF WHOLE-HALF-QUARTER CONCEPTS ACCORDING TO RBC THEORY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole-half-quarter are important mathematical concepts that form the basis of fractions and should be well understood for advancing mathematical topics. The aim of this study is to determine the primary school students' abstraction levels of whole-half-quarter concepts according to RBC theory. The participants of the study are six students (8 age group) from the second grade of primary school. The data of the research which is a case study were collected through worksheets and semi-structured interviews. The data obtained from interviews were analyzed by qualitative data analysis steps. The abstraction levels of students were evaluated according to RBC theory. As a result of the study, it was seen that many of the students could not abstract the whole, half and quarter concepts. It was determined that difficulties of students to abstract the whole-half-quarter concepts resulted from reasons such as not understanding the half and quarter concepts, not being able to divide the whole into two equal parts, not being able to divide one dimensional shapes into half and quarter, generalizing dividing into quarter as putting a "+", not being able to divide into four equal parts for quarter.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".