MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020999724 · doi:10.5539/res.v12n2p33

Developing Aesthetic Education Programme for Adults in Realization of Sustainable Development Goal Eleven (11) in Rivers State

2020· article· en· W3020999724 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stella C. Nwizu, Christian N. Olori

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Education and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTertiary Education Trust Fund
KeywordsBrainstormingPopulationStratified samplingSample (material)Sustainable developmentHuman settlementData collectionSnowball samplingPsychologyMedical educationPublic relationsSociologySocioeconomicsGeographyBusinessMarketingSocial sciencePolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rise in population explosion characterized by influx of activities of multinational oil companies in Rivers State has called for the need to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (SDG 11). This study therefore aimed at developing aesthetic education programme for adults in realization of sustainable development goal 11 in Rivers State, Nigeria. The study was guided by four objectives. The research and development design was adopted for the study. The population of the study was 2,022 respondents made up of 170 facilitators and 1,653 learners from the three senatorial districts in the state. The proportionate stratified random sampling technique was used to select 30% of the population as the sample size. Instrument for data collection was the researchers’ structured questionnaire which was face validated by three experts. Data collected were subjected to descriptive and inferential analysis in the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) software version 21. Findings revealed that transmitting knowledge for disaster management and development of perceptual sensitivity on aesthetic experiences were some of the objectives of aesthetic education programme. The study further revealed disaster management and cultural norms and values as some of its contents. Brainstorming and observation were some of the delivery systems, while discussion and the use of video clips among others were evaluation strategies. Recommendations and implications were further provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicAfrican Education and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207