MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4302763873 · doi:10.5539/hes.v12n4p66

The Community-based Institutional Administration Model to Promote Students’ Career Skills in Chiang Mai Education Sandbox, Thailand

2022· article· en· W4302763873 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Education Environments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSandbox (software development)Chiang maiPsychologyMedical educationSociologyLibrary scienceMedicineSocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research objectives were shown as follows: 1) to research the community-based institutional administration model to promote students’ career skills in the Chiang Mai education sandbox, 2) to design the community-based institutional administration model to promote students’ career skills in the Chiang Mai education sandbox, 3) to experiment the community-based institutional administration model to promote students’ career skills in the Chiang Mai education sandbox, and 4) to develop the community-based institutional administration model to promote students’ career skills in the Chiang Mai education sandbox by using research and development method. The samples of this study were 1) 9 basic education commissions, 2) 8 teachers and educational personnel, 3) 15 community leaders, monks, local wise men, and villagers, 4) 7 educational experts, and 5) 28 students, which in total were 67 people. The tools used in this study were as follows: 1) structured interview form, 2) community-based institutional administration model assessment form, 3) satisfaction assessment form, and 4) group discussion record form. Qualitative data were analyzed using Content Analysis and presented in a descriptive form (Descriptive Analysis), and quantitative data were analyzed using a statistical program to determine the mean and standard deviation. The result showed as follows:1) A community-based institutional administration model for promoting students’ career skills in the Chiang Mai education sandbox must be an educational management in an area with spatial diversity. School administrators and teachers must provide great cooperation and interest in participating in the development of the school by following the guidelines of the education sandbox. Furthermore, piloting basic learning activities that involved community areas and the area surrounding a community that is rich in natural resources and the environment was essential. This was the significant strength point that allowed us to develop a community-based institutional administration model more effectively.; 2) A community-based institutional administration model for promoting students’ career skills in the Chiang Mai education sandbox had an institution management strategy called the "4K Model," consisting of four strategies as follows: 1) Strategy 1 Knowingly: K1 Knowingly situations in the world, 2) Strategy 2 Keep Step: K2 Keep moving steps forward together, 3) Strategy 3 Knowledge: K3 Transferring knowledge from the community, and 4) Strategy 4 Kit out: K4 Sourcing support resources.; 3) Using the community-based institutional administration model to promote students’ career skills in the Chiang Mai education sandbox, it was found that the overall level of satisfaction in both teachers and educational personnel, and students towards the use of this model was at the highest level.; 4) The community-based institutional administration model to promote students’ career skills in the Chiang Mai education sandbox that the researcher had developed to be more complete was under these five strategies as follows: 1) Strategy 1 Knowingly: K1 Knowingly situations in the world, 2) Strategy 2 Keep Step: K2 Keep moving steps forward together, 3) Strategy 3 Knowledge: K3 Transferring knowledge from the community, 4) Strategy 4 Kit out: K4 Sourcing support resources and 5) Strategy 5 Key success: K5 Key success. It was also found that there was a mechanism that supported this model, consisting of four mechanisms as follows: 1) policy mechanism, 2) academic cooperation building, 3) collaborative vision building, and 4) network party.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.334 · 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