MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394735304 · doi:10.5539/jel.v13n3p123

The Strategies of Driving Upright Schools Under the Office of the Basic Education Commission in the Northeastern

2024· article· en· W4394735304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kanjanar Sattarutnumporn, Pacharawit Chansirisira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Education Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aimed 1) to investigate the components and indicators of the upright schools, 2) to explore the current state, the desired state, and the need assessment of driving the upright schools, 3) to develop strategies for driving the upright schools and 4) to investigate the outcomes of implementing driving the upright school strategies in schools in the northeastern region under the supervision of the Office of Basic Education Commission. The study is divided into 4 phases. Phase 1: seven experts scrutinize, evaluate the components and indicators. Phase 2: investigate the need assessment of a sample group including school directors and teachers total of 375 schools took derived by multi-stage sampling. Phase 3: 10 experts for assessment the strategies. Phase 4: apply the strategies to 30 schools. The data were collected through questionnaires, interviews, assessments, and observational forms. Average, standard deviation and Priority Needs Index (PNImodified) were used to analyze the data. The findings of the study revealed the following: 1. The components and indicators of the upright school project include five components and sixteen indicators: 1) academic administration (4 indicators), 2) budget administration (3 indicators), 3) personnel administration (2 indicators), 4) general administration (2 indicators), and 5) result and success (5 indicators). These are measured at the highest level when evaluating the appropriateness of the mentioned features and indicators. 2. The overall current state of the upright schools is rated at a moderate level, while the desired state is rated at high level. However, when classifying the needs of driving the upright school project, the required components were arranged from highest to lowest as follows: result and success, academic administration, budget administration, personnel administration, and general administration. 3. The strategies for driving upright schools under the authority of the Office of Basic Education Commission, which are comprised of 5 strategies (5S) 4. The outcomes of implementing driving the upright school strategies demonstrated that the target schools understandably applied the strategies and have been evaluated at the highest level in all standards regarding the standard of upright school project administration on the whole.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicDiverse Education Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207