MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061653962 · doi:10.1177/1098214007307942

Evaluations That Consider the Cost of Educational Programs

2007· article· en· W2061653962 on OpenAlex
John A. Ross, Khaled Barkaoui, Garth Scott

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Evaluation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgram evaluationCost effectivenessSet (abstract data type)Cost–benefit analysisComputer scienceCost estimateMacroProgram Design LanguageActuarial scienceCost contingencyManagement scienceRelevant costRisk analysis (engineering)EconomicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cost studies are program evaluations that judge program worth by relating program costs to program benefits. There are three sets of strategies: cost—benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analysis, although the last appears infrequently. The authors searched relevant databases to identify 103 cost studies in education and then reduced the set to 31 using criteria focused on rigor in determining program effects and assessment of costs. They found that cost studies provide evidence of the worth of educational spending at the macro and individual program levels, information that is not provided by other evaluation approaches; provide direction for program improvement that differs from recommendations based solely on effect sizes; and contribute to knowledge development by constructing and testing models that link spending to student learning.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.363 · 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