MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stability or stagnation, or why the school is not the way reformers would like

2008· article· en· W2095100738 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Tröhler

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionContemplationField (mathematics)UnrestPolitical scienceSociologyPolitical economyLawEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The school has always been understood as a kind of technological medium for realization of visions of social justice and progress. And as different as these visions of the future are, the protagonists were and are always in very strong agreement that the school is not fulfilling the role intended for it. Reforms that falter, however, do not usually lead to reflection and contemplation but instead to new strategies, in the hope that different means can achieve the success that earlier efforts failed to produce. Reforms follow reforms, new models replace models only just initiated, and the unrest in the field can at times assume alarming proportions, serving more to hinder than strengthen the professional efforts of the actors involved. This paper examines the most recent phase of educational reform heading for efficiency by testing two prominent theories about the persistence of the school system, the so called Neo-Institutionalism and the Grammar-of-Schooling thesis.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.021
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207