MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stability of School Academic Performance Across Subject Areas

2001· article· en· W1996977567 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Measurement · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationContext (archaeology)Subject (documents)Academic achievementMultilevel modelPsychologyReading (process)School climateStatistical analysisMultivariate analysisGeographyComputer scienceMathematicsPolitical scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies on the stability of school academic performance across school subject areas show two weaknesses: a lack of research attention to elementary schools and a lack of adequate statistical adjustments for school characteristics. With data describing elementary students (N = 6,883 students in Grade 6 in 148 schools) from the New Brunswick School Climate Study (NBSCS), the current study examined correlates of academic performance across mathematics, science, reading, and writing among students and among schools, using a multivariate multilevel model with statistical adjustments for student characteristics and school context and climate characteristics. Results indicated that (a) students were differentially successful in different subject areas, (b) schools were differentially effective in different subject areas, and (c) the differential success was more obvious among students than among schools. Findings of this study call for a new type of school programs that aim to ensure that students progress equally in different subject areas and for stronger school policies that systematically coordinate classroom or department practices.

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)0.019
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational MeasurementSame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207