Bibliographic record
Abstract
When one discusses the dissemination of the educational aims and tasks on a theoretical, as well as a methodological, level, it is important to highlight that pedagogy, being the science of education that it is, finds solutions in differing directions. One is theoretical, and the other is the realization of the sum of the demands of working in the field of education. More often than not, educational aims come from the basic demands of society. They can also be taken from documents of state, laws, resolutions etc. Sometimes, they can be set too wide and can be too general. This is thought to be the reason of insufficient clarity of the educational aim when we discuss making the educational aim more specific and realizing it in the educational process itself. This is where we find the need to further develop the educational aim and make it more specific in order to make it possible to realize for a practical educational purpose and to realize the educational goals of the person we are trying to educate. This process of specification relates to two levels. One is the scientifically-theoretical, and the other is a practical one. This paper, therefore, deals with ways of making the educational aim more specific and realizing it in the educational process. The paper also highlights the importance of basing the educational aim in a scientific, as well as a theoretical, approach and making it more specific in order to achieve it as fully as possible in the educational process. The paper presents a curriculum approach to the realization of the educational aim and its specification. By doing so, it creates the basis for acting in a scientific-theoretical way, as well as in a practical one.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".