MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399331776 · doi:10.14333/kjte.2024.40.3.05

The Implications for the Improvement of Student Records in Korea Derived from an Analysis of Ontario Student Records in Canada

2024· article· en· W4399331776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hye-Chong Han, Seung-Mi Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Teacher Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Systems and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistorical recordPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to derive implications for the improvement of student records in Korea from an analysis of Ontario student records in Canada. Methods: Through analysis of previous research, problems, and directions for improvement in the Korean student record system were derived, and the characteristics of the student record system in Ontario, Canada, were analyzed to explore implications for improving the Korean student record system. Results: The implications are as follows: Firstly, Korean student records need to be restructured around the subject learning activities. Secondly, it is necessary to consider introducing a checklist method to guarantee the objectivity of the narrative records. Thirdly, in order for student records to be an authentic record of student progress, most importantly, educational activities should encourage student growth rather than encourage competition among students, and the assessment method for students’ subjects learning should be improved. Fourthly, it is necessary to differentiate the records system in accordance with the differences in education by school - level. Fifthly, it is necessary to reduce the amount of the guideline documents found in student record writing and improve them so that they are presented in a teacher-friendly manner. Conclusion: The student record system must be improved with a focus on the educational function of student records. To achieve this it is imperative to improve the awareness of parents, students, teachers, and officials regarding the educational function of student records, as well as to explore ways to utilize them for college admissions.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designObservational
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 venueKorean Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicEducational Systems and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207