Mnenje vzgojiteljic o prehranjevanju in počitku otrok v predšolskem obdobju
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dnevna rutina nudi tako otrokom kot odraslim spored zaporednih dogodkov, na katerega se lahko naslonijo in ga dojemajo (Hohmann in Weikart, 2005). V diplomskem delu z naslovom Mnenje vzgojiteljic o prehranjevanju in počitku otrok v predšolskem obdobju sem v teoretičnem delu raziskala in opisala dele dnevne rutine. Osredotočila sem se predvsem na prehranjevanje in počitek, pri čemer sem v ospredje postavila razvojne značilnosti otroka, organizacijo omenjenih delov rutine v vrtcu ter vlogo starša in vzgojitelja. V empiričnem delu sem z intervjuji zbrala mnenja vzgojiteljic, kjer sem z analizo ugotovila, da se mnenja po večini ne razlikujejo glede na lokacijo opravljanja dela vzgojiteljic. Vzgojiteljice opažajo razlike pri organizaciji dnevne rutine glede na starostna obdobja. Menijo, da je upoštevanje želja in predlogov otrok pomembno, prav tako upoštevajo navade družin pri prehranjevanju in počitku. Vzgojiteljice razlikujejo med počitkom in spanjem otroka, kjer so k mirnim dejavnostim naklonjene predvsem vzgojiteljice s krajšo delovno dobo. Pri tem ocenjujejo otrokovo potrebo po dnevnem spancu med eno uro ter dvema in pol, pri čemer se ocenjena količina zmanjšuje z otrokovim odraščanjem. Nadaljnja izobraževanja si želijo vzgojiteljice z nižjo delovno dobo.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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.
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".