MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960445196 · doi:10.18235/0008987

Assesing Educational Equality and Equity with Large-Scale Assessment Data: Brazil as a Case Study

2012· report· en· W1960445196 on OpenAlexaff
J. Douglas Willms, Lucía Tramonte, Jesús Duarte, María Soledad Bos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersInter-American Development Bank
KeywordsEquity (law)Scale (ratio)Actuarial scienceSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyCartographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have defined and assessed inequalities and inequities in education in various ways, making it difficult to make comparisons among countries or among jurisdictions within countries. This paper sets out practical definitions for equality and equity in education and discusses the prominent issues regarding the use of large-scale national and international assessment data to assess them. Examples are drawn from the national assessment data from Brazil.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207