MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039423225 · doi:10.5430/wje.v10n3p148

Comparison of Misconceptions about Human Digestive System of Turkish, Albanian and Bosnian 12th Grade High School Students

2020· article· en· W3039423225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arzu Çuçin, Sami Özgür, Burcu Güngör Cabbar

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBosnianTurkishEthnic groupPsychologyMathematics educationPerceptionSociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207