Synthesis of Plans to Increase the Results of Ordinary National Education Test by All-Round Tutoring Process for Primary School Grade 6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research is to study the results of activities to increase the scores of Ordinary National Education Test. Cluster; teachers of Phetchaburi Rajabhat University comparing the results of Ordinary National Education Test in 2017-2018 and studying the satisfaction of the activities. The target group is 49 schools in Phetchaburi and Prachuap Khiri Khan Provinces, data were analyzed using mean and standard deviation. The study found that the difference of the scores of the Ordinary National Education Test was higher in 32 schools and there is a difference in scores of Ordinary National Education Test tests lower by 2 schools, representing 94.12, with the satisfaction of the participation in the activity of increasing the basic educational testing at the basic level is at a high level with an average of 4.22, standard deviations 0.73, which the participants are satisfied with the process. The process of organizing activities was at the highest with an average of 4.28, standard deviations 0.76 and continues organizing activities to increase the scores of Ordinary National Education Test.
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 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".