Travelling Policy and Local Spaces in the Republic of Tajikistan: A Comparison of the Attitudes of Tajikistan and the World Bank towards Textbook Provision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For newly independent Central Asian republics a debate has arisen about how much of the aims, content and pedagogy of old Soviet-era curricula to retain, how much to revise or replace, and with what. There is a need to replace and revise textbooks, which are wearing out and outdated. Financial crisis has made the financial support of external funding agencies necessary to do so, allowing these agencies great influence on choice of appropriate aims, objectives and pedagogy to be embodied in new textbooks, and thus on educational change in Central Asia. However, attitudes towards strengths and weaknesses of the existing system, and thus the need for change, may differ between Central Asian educational authorities and external donors. Policies recommended by external agencies may be accepted, adapted, resisted or rejected by local educators for various reasons. This study compares attitudes towards textbook provision policy expressed in two normative texts on educational needs in Tajikistan: one produced by Tajikistan authorities and one by the World Bank. While both express the importance of textbook development for educational reform, clear differences in priorities for textbook development and attitudes towards existing aims, content and pedagogies are identified. These differences suggest the need for increased dialogue between local authorities and external donors. Further, such dialogue should be extended to other key stakeholders in the reform process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".