Comparison of Misconceptions about Human Digestive System of Turkish, Albanian and Bosnian 12th Grade High School Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information that is different from scientific knowledge, consistent and resistant to change, can be expressed as misconceptions. Misconceptions are one of the critical factors that prevent students from understanding in Biology education. This study was conducted in Kosovo with high school 12th-grade students of three different ethnic origins. It is aimed to determine the misconceptions that students have about “Digestive System in Human” comparatively. The study was carried out with 150 12th grade students in Kosovo in the 2016/2017 academic year. The research was carried out with qualitative research techniques as a data collection tool consisting of student drawings and explanations, and true/false items used. A descriptive analysis made. The findings showed that the students had many misconceptions about the human digestive system. Some Turkish students have drawn the digestive system with the kidney and intestine compared to other ethnic groups. Albanian and Bosnian students generally draw the digestive system after the stomach for separate solids for liquids. This misconception may be related to the concept of image (prima de perception) (Bachelard, 1938). Also, cultural misconceptions stemming from language encountered. Bosnian students use the concept of "boiling" instead of "digestion".
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".