MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400013662 · doi:10.5539/jel.v13n5p48

The Integration of Local Wisdom with Learning Innovations in the ‘Buddhism’ Course for Lower Secondary School Students in Thailand’s Educational Opportunity Expansion Schools

2024· article· en· W4400013662 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phirakit Krualunteerayut, Theerapong Meethaisong, Chalong Phanchan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonprobability samplingBuddhismHigher educationSociologyPsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationPopulationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to investigate the local wisdom within communities served by educational opportunity expansion schools in Thailand. Specifically, it seeks to identify local wisdom that can be integrated into the ‘Buddhism’ course for lower secondary school students. The study also synthesizes the integration of this local wisdom with learning management and develops an innovative learning model named ‘SAAOL’. Additionally, student satisfaction with this learning approach is evaluated. The study involved religious leaders, local philosophers, community leaders, educational administrators, teachers, and 200 students selected through purposive sampling. Research tools included in-depth interviews, a learning management manual, and a satisfaction assessment form. The results reveal four local wisdoms, namely ‘Sim’, ‘Khalum’, ‘Pha-Wed Cloth’, and ‘Khun Mak Beng,’ which can be integrated into the ‘Buddhism’ course through the ‘SAAOL learning model.’ Student satisfaction with this approach was notably high.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207