MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159388256 · doi:10.5539/ies.v14n5p42

Opinions of the Teaching Staff at Taibah University About Islamic Education Teacher Preparation Programs in the Light of the Requirements of Intellectual Security

2021· article· en· W3159388256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Awadh Zuraiban Al-Johani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample (material)IslamTerrorismIslamic educationPsychologyHigher educationMathematics educationRealmPedagogySociologyMedical educationPolitical scienceLawChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study aims to explore the realm of preparing Islamic education teachers in the light of the intellectual security requirements from the point of view of teaching staff at Taibah University. The researcher used the descriptive approach and designed a questionnaire to review the opinions that consisted of two main topics. The first topic is the intellectual security requirements for the academic preparation program (the Specialist Academic Aspect – the Cultural Aspect – the Educational Aspect “Professional”) to encounter radicalism and terrorism. The second topic is the proposed concept to encounter the obstacles to fulfill intellectual security requirements in the preparation colleges programs. Each main topic is subdivided into a set of clauses (42 clauses) for the two topics. The study sample consists of (83) teaching staff members at the preparation colleges. The study has been applied to the study sample during the first semester of the academic year 1439 – 1440 A.H. The study findings show the following: The first topic achieved (78.55%) of the opinions of the study sample members about the preparation program of the Islamic Education teachers in the light of the intellectual security requirements for encountering radicalism and terrorism. The second topic achieved (93%) of the opinions of the study sample members about the proposed concept to overcome the obstacles to meet intellectual security requirements in the preparation programs. There are no differences of the statistical significance level (50. = ∞) among the study sample members toward the questionnaire according to the faculty type for the first topic and the tool in general. There are no differences of the statistical significance level (50. = ∞) among the study sample members toward the questionnaire according to the faculty type for the second topic and the tool in general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207