A Study on Comparative Examination of the Theme "Power, Authority and Management" in the Social Studies Curriculums of Turkey, Canada (Alberta) and England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine and compare the curricula of Social Studies courses in Turkey, Canada (Alberta) and England in terms of the theme "Power, Authority and Management". It is aimed to determine the similarities and the differences. In the study, qualitative research method was adopted. The source of the data consisted of the social studies curricula applied in Turkey, Canada (Alberta) and England. In the study, the criterion sampling of non-probability sampling methods was used. The findings of the study were obtained using a document analysis. In the analysis of data, descriptive analysis method of qualitative research techniques was used. In the light of the findings obtained in the study, it was seen that right, responsibility, freedom, democracy and constitution were common and were included in the programs of all three countries. It was also determined that the three countries included higher-order thinking skills related to the theme. Based on the research findings, documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the La Grande Paix De Montréal Treaty that are being implemented in other countries may be included in the program in order to give students a universal perspective on laws and rules.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| 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".