The Extent of Inclusion (TIMSS-2019) Standards of Mathematics Book Scheduled for the Fourth Grade Students in Jordan from Maths Teachers’ Point of View for the Fourth Grade Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to find out the Extent of Inclusion (TIMSS-2019) Standards of mathematics book scheduled for the Fourth Grade Students in Jordan from Maths teachers’ point of view for the Fourth Grade Students. The study sample consisted of 300 Maths teachers for the Fourth Grade Students in Mafraq governorate. This study used the descriptive methodology. To this study, the researcher has prepared a list of criteria (TIMSS-2019) to be included in the mathematics book scheduled for the Fourth Grade Students in Jordan, and then organized these standards in the form of a questionnaire consisting of two dimensions are (content and knowledge) emanates from each of them (3) domains and under them (43) sub-standards criteria from (School Mathematics Assessment frame work,TIMSS-2019 ).The researcher then turned this list into a questionnaire which describing the final degree of inclusion of the six areas, to find out the Extent of Inclusion Standards of mathematics book scheduled for the Fourth Grade Students in Jordan. The scale validity and reliability were verified. The study results showed that the percentage of the Extent of Inclusion (TIMSS-2019) Standards of mathematics book scheduled for the Fourth Grade Students in Jordan from Maths teachers’ point of view for the Fourth Grade Students was medium and a general percentage of (66)%.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".