Comparison of the elementary music curricula in Ontario, Canada, and Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, Ontario and Turkey primary school music curricula were examined. In this sense, in order to determine the similarities and differences, the general expectations in the curriculum, the general aims on the basis of the class and the skills aimed to be achieved, and the assessment and evaluation criteria have formed the sub-problems of the study. Document analysis was used as a method. The data are taken from the elementary music curriculum published in Ontario, Canada in 2009, and from the elementary music curriculum published in 2018 for Turkey. This study shows the overall expectations for both curricula, presented in tables for each grade from grade 1 to grade 8. The objectives and general evaluation criteria for each class are also included in the findings section. In this context, the effects of political and cultural policies on the curriculum in the formation of the determined similarities and differences were discussed. As a result, it has been determined that while the similarities are limited to subjects such as teaching western music and expressing emotions, the differences are generally due to the fact that the countries are multi-cultural or nation-state. In this context, it can be said that the cultural values and social structures of the countries can shape their education policies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".