MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910471852 · doi:10.46827/ejes.v11i6.5343

ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE ASPECTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING: A STUDY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MERDEKA CURRICULUM

2024· other· en· W6910471852 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access Publishing Group - European Journal of Education Studies · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Curriculum and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionEarly childhoodData collectionCurriculumCognitive developmentEarly childhood educationChildhood educationDescriptive statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this writing is to analyze the cognitive aspects of early childhood learning using the Merdeka curriculum. The research method employed is the qualitative descriptive method. Data collection techniques were conducted through observation, interviews, documentation, and data analysis techniques. Descriptive data analysis was carried out to explain or present information contained in the data so that it could be better understood. The research results indicate that the application of cognitive theory in early childhood learning at Integrated Early Childhood Education Citra Bakti implements child development in accordance with the preparation of teaching aids where there are indicators related to cognitive aspects. In learning achievements, there are three stimulation elements, each containing six aspects. These three stimulation elements elaborate on the aspects of religious and moral values development, physical motor skills, cognitive, socio-emotional, language, Pancasila values, and other areas to optimize children's growth and development according to educational needs. In the Merdeka curriculum, learning achievements are outlined as learning objectives. In these learning achievements, the three achievements consist of: (1) achievement of religious and moral values learning, (2) achievement of self-identity learning, and (3) achievement of literacy basics, mathematics, science, technology, engineering, and arts learning. Article visualizations:

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access Publishing Group - European Journal of Education StudiesSame topicEducational Curriculum and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207