MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058526604 · doi:10.1080/13803610600587008

Variation in socioeconomic gradients among cantons in French- and Italian-speaking Switzerland: Findings from the OECD PISA

2006· article· en· W2058526604 on OpenAlexaff
J. Douglas Willms

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Research and Evaluation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanSocioeconomic statusVariation (astronomy)Multilevel modelInequalityPsychologyLiteracyDemographyGeographySociologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results from the 2000 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Programme for International Assessment (PISA) indicated that inequalities in performance associated with students' family background were relatively large in Switzerland compared to other participating countries. The study upon which this article is based examines the relationships between literacy performance and family background for Switzerland in greater detail. Particular attention is given to the variation in this relationship among the German-, French-, and Italian-speaking jurisdictions, and among cantons within the French- and Italian-speaking regions. The study uses data for 6,100 15-year-old students who participated in the main PISA study, and for 5,730 students who participated in a supplemental study of grade-9 students in the French- and Italian-speaking regions. The analysis employs multilevel statistical techniques to examine the relationships among students within classrooms, and among classrooms within cantons. The findings that emerged from the study have important implications for school policy in Switzerland.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational Research and EvaluationSame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207