MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989872932 · doi:10.5539/res.v1n1p2

European Lifelong Learning Educational Policy in the Light of the “Lisbon Agenda”: The Greek Case

2009· article· en· W1989872932 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ευγενία Πανιτσίδου, Adamantios Papastamatis

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLisbon StrategyLifelong learningEuropean unionCohesion (chemistry)Human capitalPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Public administrationEconomic growthEconomicsEconomic policyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investment in human capital emerged as core priority for European Union (EU) policies at the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000, shifting the perspective as regards the correlation between economic and social capital, and providing for strategic goals in order to strengthen employment, economic reform and social cohesion. Hence, novel priorities have emerged for Greek educational policy, accrediting exceptional significance to lifelong learning so as to raise compatibility with the “knowledge based society” mandates. The present paper attempts a policy impact analysis through thorough review of Greek education and training policies undertaken to respond to the European challenges. In the light of the evolving Lisbon agenda, it takes account of the legal context and underlying principles of Greek educational policy with respect to lifelong learning, to draw upon the impact of an EU convergence policy activating educational initiatives and objectives to attain sustainable growth development.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicRegional Development and PolicyFrench-language works237,207