The Qualified Student Perceptions of Social Studies Teachers ın P4C Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education is based on a process that attempts to profile individual behavior via learning. Although this process includes formal and informal dimensions, it could be suggested that both dimensions are effective on the behavior of the individual. Several factors affect the educational process. These variables are significant determinants that affect the quality and quantity of the process. One of these determinants is the student. It could be suggested that the student, the input of the education system and considered the most important element, plays a critical role in the analysis of the quality of the process based on the acquisitions of the student in the learning-instruction process. It could be suggested that this role contributes to the development of an objective student profile in education. Thus, the present study aimed to analyze the perceptions of social studies teachers in philosophy for children (P4c) program, which aims to train a qualified student profile in Turkey, and acquisition of philosophical and critical thinking skills at an early age. In the present study, conducted with the qualitative research method, the views of the teachers on the impact of the P4c program on the student qualifications were collected and the findings based on these views on the P4c program were analyzed. The study revealed significant findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".