MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972991725 · doi:10.3406/rfeco.2005.1572

Les prêts contingents aux étudiants dans les pays de l'OCDE

2005· article· en· W1972991725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Denis Maguain

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue française d économie · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigher educationLoanPrivate educationStudent loanPolitical scienceInequalityInvestment (military)Economic growthEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Students Income Contingent Loans in OECD Countries. Investment in higher education is important for economic growth. Now, although most of European countries (including France) invest about 1 % of GDP in Higher Education, United State (and Canada) devote to it about 2.5 % of GDP (OCDE [2004]). We also point out that Higher Education spending tend to be more important in countries where a substantial part of the funding is private, originating from students and their families or from donations (alumnies) or enterprises. The difficulties in Higher Education funding that arose in some developed countries during the 90 s, combined with a persistent inequality of opportunities, have conducted some of them to implement reforms. Those reforms have in common some core characteristics that lean on Income Contingent Loans in compensation of the introduction of higher tuition fees. This note presents in details some of theses reforms introduced in United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. We also present the case of Sweden, where students loan schemes exist since long although access to Higher Education is totally free in this country.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue française d économieSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207