MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411740863 · doi:10.5539/hes.v15n3p162

The Learning Management Models in the 21st Century for Early Childhood Teachers

2025· article· en· W4411740863 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saksri Suebsing, Thitinan Udomson, Supimol Boonphok

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEducation Systems and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyFaculty developmentTeaching methodEarly childhood educationPedagogyProfessional development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this research is to develop a 21st-century learning management model tailored for early childhood teachers in Roi Et Province. The sample group includes teachers of early childhood education. A simple random sample from the sample is chosen to achieve this. 400 persons. The research employed questionnaires, an assessment form, and learning tests for early childhood teachers as tools. The data analysis utilized statistical measures like averages, standard deviations, and other factors. SEM, on the other hand, analyzes linear structural relationships. The results showed that: The progression of learning management among early childhood educators includes: Teacher Professional Competency (CoPT) Noble Truth 4 (NoTF) Teacher Spirit (SopT) Inspiration to have a public mind (IPS) Learning Management Behavior (BML) and the behavior of using learning innovations (UILM) The driving force of civic-mindedness. (IPS) It has a direct impact on the use of learning innovations. (UILM) For early childhood educators, 87.50% In addition, it can offer an additional elucidation of the variability of the internal latent variables. 2 The body exemplifies the principle of Inspiration with a public spirit (IPS) at 82.70% and demonstrates learning management behavior (BML) Percentage at 98.60%.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 Systems and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207