A Study of School Size among Alabama’s Public High Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the size of Alabama’s public high schools, selected school quality and financial indicators, and their students’ performance on standardized exams. When the socioeconomic level of the student bodies is held constant, the size of high schools in Alabama has relatively little relationship with 11th grade student (both regular and special education) performance on the reading and math portions of the AHSGE. High schools’ average daily attendance rates and pupil-to-computer (and computer with Internet connections) ratios do not vary in accordance with school size. Higher percentages of highly qualified teachers are found in Alabama’s largest high schools. There was very little difference in the percentage of teachers with a master’s degree or above across school size categories. Very little difference exists across size categories in regard to mean expenditures per pupil (range = $7,322 to $7,829). However, districts of the large high schools exert over twice the effort of those with small high schools (3.2 mills to 1.5 mills) and approximately 50 percent greater local effort than the districts of the medium-size high schools.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".