MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493385229 · doi:10.1596/10352

When Governments Get Creative : Adult Literacy in Senegal

2004· book· en· W1493385229 on OpenAlex
Bjorn Harald Nordtveit

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Bank, Washington, DC eBooks · 2004
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Education and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)General partnershipLiteracyGovernment (linguistics)Financial literacyPolitical scienceCivil societyBusinessPublic relationsEconomic growthEconomicsFinanceSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report summarizes lessons learned and key policy findings on the World Bank's work in education in Senegal. In 1993, Senegal established a new policy for literacy programs based on partnership between civil society and the state: the state ensures policy leadership, overall coordination, monitoring and evaluation; the providers (civil society organizations, such as non-profits, village associations, and language associations) implement local literacy activities; an independent contract-managing agency handles contracts and rapid transfer of funds to providers. The World Bank financed project achieved the following results, which were similar to those achieved by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): about 190,000 participants, of which 87 percent were women, enrolled in literacy classes over a five-year period; capacity in government and civil society organizations improved consistently; the dropout rate averaged 15 percent (much lower than for most adult literacy programs); most participants achieved learning mastery levels for reading (although not for math). The results of the literacy training exceeded target levels. Learning outcomes systematically improved as a result of two factors: providers became more experienced; and research led to improved procedures. The report notes that weak monitoring and evaluation contributed to the following shortcomings: re-financing of low-quality providers; lack of information about impact. As a result of these problems, some of the literacy courses did not provide adequate learning for the participants.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.281 · 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