MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095124680 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v6n4p77

Parents’ Education and Child Schooling Outcome: Evidence from Uganda

2013· article· en· W2095124680 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Edward Bbaale, Faisal Buyinza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Educational attainmentProbit modelOutcome (game theory)Perspective (graphical)ProbitPsychologySecondary educationDevelopmental psychologyDemographic economicsEconomic growthEconomicsMathematics educationEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an analysis of the determinants of school enrolment and attainment rates in Uganda from a gender perspective. We used the DHS 2006 data set and employed maximum likelihood binary and ordered probit models in our estimation. Whereas improvements in parents’ education promote the schooling outcome of both boys and girls, it is not without inclination. Fathers’ education significantly favors boys’ schooling and mothers’ education significantly favors girls’ schooling. This suggests that there are differences in parents’ preferences for schooling of children. We also find that the higher the parents’ education (secondary and postsecondary levels) the more favorable are the child’s schooling outcomes. For more favorable child schooling outcomes for future generations, government should strengthen policies aimed at educating boys and girls beyond secondary level. The government universal secondary education program is a good start and needs to be strengthened.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207