MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406167829 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n1p202

The Qualified Student Perceptions of Social Studies Teachers ın P4C Program

2025· article· en· W4406167829 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erol Koçoğlu, Kübra Melis Avcu, Ülkü ULUKAYA ÖTELEŞ, Fatıma Betül Demir, Gül Özlem YILDIRIM

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation Practices and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPsychologyMedical educationPedagogyMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.467
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicEducation Practices and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207