Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universities have been at the center of educational debates since their inception. Their functions, aims and products have been questioned in the context of social, cultural, economic and technological changes. In this context, the aim of this study is to critically examine university education from the perspectives of undergraduate students. The study was conducted with a quantitative design by analyzing the data collected with the "Critical University Education Scale" developed by the researcher with 236 undergraduate students studying at Kafkas University. During the development of the scale used in the study, factor analysis, which is a principal component analysis for validity, KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) value, which is a test of sphericity, was calculated and the Cronbach Alpha Coefficient formula was used to ensure reliability. In the data analysis of the study, descriptive statistics, independent t-test and One-Way ANOVA were used, and it was examined whether there was a difference in the thoughts of the undergraduate students participating in the study regarding university education according to their age group, gender, program, year of study and their father's education status. As a result of the research, it was seen that undergraduate students were more critical of the statements in the dimension of teaching practices than in the dimension of innovation and creativity, free thought and inquiry. It was concluded that undergraduate students' critical thoughts regarding university education differed according to age, gender, program, year of study and father's education status.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".