SCHOOL-BASED FEEDING PROGRAM AS KEY VARIABLE IN IMPROVING THE TLE PERFORMANCE AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERNOURISHED STUDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of the study was to test school-based feeding program as key variable in improving the TLE performance and personal development of undernourished students. The researcher conducted descriptive-correlational research to obtain the results. The respondents of the study included thirty (30) students who are undernourished, enrolled at San Jose Integrated High School in S.Y. 2022-2023. A survey questionnaire was used in the study. Three teachers are experts in TLE subject who validated the research instruments. The respondents were mostly 14 years of age. There were more female respondents. Most of the respondents have fathers who are part-time or contractual employees and are self-employed. Most respondents have fathers who are high school graduates and mothers who are college graduates. Most of the respondents family income is less than PHP 5000.00 a month. Based on the findings and results of statistical analysis, the respondents perceived level on the school-based feeding program in terms of objectives, strategies and activities, resources, planning, monitoring and evaluation, students responded strongly agree. Similarly, the responses of students were also “strongly agree” in terms of physical appearance and social aspect. In addition, the students performance in terms of their TLE scores in 3rd quarterly assessment and grades for the 3rd quarter were also evaluated and recorded. The study found that the school-based feeding program helped in improving the students performance in TLE as the students had good grades. The study shows that in terms of planning and 3rd quarter grades, there is a significant relationship exists. Significant relationship exists between the perception of the students on school-based feeding program as to objectives, strategies, and activities, planning and TLE performance in terms of 3rd quarter assessment. When it comes to the test of relationship between profile and performance in TLE, there is an association between mothers occupation and TLE performance and there is also an association between fathers educational attainment and TLE performance and there is no significant relationship exists between students perception of the school-based feeding program and personal development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".