MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996162525

Qüestionari d'avaluació de la gestió del temps periescolar en estudiants d'educació secundària (QAvGTPEES)

2015· report· ca· W6996162525 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) · 2015
Typereport
Languageca
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Practices and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaQuarter (Canadian coin)Period (music)Context (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El Qüestionari d'Avaluació de la Gestió del Temps Periescolar en Estudiants d'Educació Secundària (QAvGTPEES) ha estat validat per experts (acadèmics i professionals de l'àmbit) i per dos estudis pilots. En el primer estudi, han participat 91 estudiants d'ESO d'un sol centre educatiu de la Comunitat Valenciana i, en el segon, 730 estudiants de cinc centres educatius de la mateixa comunitat distribuïts entre els quatre cursos de l'etapa educativa (la totalitat de matriculats al curs 2014-15). QAvGTPEES permet descriure com es gestiona el temps periescolar d'aprenentatge l'alumnat i fer prediccions sobre quins serien els resultats acadèmics a obtenir per l'alumnat en funció de les estratègies en gestió del temps més comunes que sol emprar quan s'enfronta a les tasques acadèmiques fora l'escola. Aquesta informació és considera vital per poder implementar programes d'intervenció educativa que ajuden a millorar les estratègies de gestió del temps periescolar manifestades per l'alumnat i evitar així el fracàs escolar o optimitzar els resultats acadèmics.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.193
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.193
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)Same topicEducational Practices and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207