MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087690258 · doi:10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n1p409

Push Out or Drop Out? Taking a Critical Look at the Poor Performance and Drop-Out of Students of the JSS/JHS Programme in Ghana

2014· article· en· W2087690258 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Gyan, Matthew Gmalifo Mabefam, Michael Baffoe

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Substance Use and School Attendance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocational educationDrop outMedical educationMathematics educationEngineeringPedagogyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1974, new educational reforms aimed at laying a solid educational foundation for children were launched in Ghana. Amongst other things, the reforms recommended the establishment of a three-year Junior Secondary School (JSS) system later renamed the Junior High School system which sought to provide more practical educational skills to students. It aimed to be proactive to the needs of Ghanaians by introducing pre-technical and pre-vocational skills to empower pupils with skills to work with after completion of the JHS program if they are not academically inclined to go further through the Senior Secondary/Senior High School system. After several years of implementation, the success rates of students from the JSS/JHS system have been abysmally poor. The situation is even more abysmal in the rural areas of Ghana where most schools lack basic teaching and learning tools. This paper, from a study of some JSS/JHS schools in some rural and urban settings in Ghana, takes a critical look at some of the factors in this educational system that has pushed many pupils to drop out of the school system hence making the system ineffective and incapable of meeting its intended purpose. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n1p409

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Journal of Interdisciplinary StudiesSame topicYouth Substance Use and School AttendanceFrench-language works237,207