MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1558041255

Private and Group Tutoring in Egypt: Where is the Gender Inequality?

2004· preprint· en· W1558041255 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2004
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityEducational inequalityGender inequalityOrder (exchange)Scale (ratio)Gender biasDemographic economicsDeveloping countryPsychologyPolitical scienceLabour economicsEconomicsSocial psychologyEconomic growthGeographyFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Private tutoring is being practiced at an alarming scale in Egypt and in many other developing countries. Nonetheless, the literature on tutoring is still scant. The purpose of this paper is to gain an understanding of the nature and determinants of tutoring in Egypt, using micro-level data, in order to investigate whether gender bias exists in tutoring decisions. It is expected that since gender disparities are present in educational investments in general, they would be more pronounced in optional educational investments like that of receiving tutoring. It is also expected that since labor market outcomes are more favorable to boys, parents would be less willing to spend on tutoring for girls. Surprisingly, however, no gender bias against girls was detected with respect to tutoring. The absence of bias is in itself a significant and puzzling finding. We conclude that the education premium in the marriage market may be the answer to the puzzle.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.306 · 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