Transformation or continuation? A critical analysis of the making of the post-2015 education agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the target date of 2015 draws near for both the Education for All and Millennium Development Goals, consultations are well-underway to begin defining the shape and scope of the post-2015 development agenda. Between September 2012 and March 2013, UN Member States, private sector representatives, multilateral development agencies, epistemic communities and non-governmental organisations participated in the Global Thematic Consultation on Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Participants involved emphasised education as a societal good and a fundamental human right. Participants also highlighted the importance of education in addressing broader global challenges, stating that ‘education and learning should be transformative and foster global citizenship, thereby assuming its central role in helping people to forge more just, peaceful, tolerant and inclusive societies’. Such discourse suggests a shift in the objectives and priorities of global education in the post-2015 context. Is it possible that the post-2015 education agenda will represent a counter-hegemonic vision for global education? This paper engages in discursal analysis of the Global Thematic Consultation on Education in the Post-2015 Development Agenda to offer a preliminary answer to this question.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".