MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108578084 · doi:10.5539/ies.v1n2p135

School Quality, Educational Inequality and Economic Growth

2008· article· en· W2108578084 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ramesh Rao, Rohana bt Jani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGini coefficientInequalityPrimary educationEconomics educationEducation economicsEducation policyHigher educationQuality (philosophy)Economic growthComparative educationEconomicsEducational inequalityDeveloping countryEconomic inequalityDevelopment economicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Realizing the importance of education in developing a country, many governments had begun to pay more attention in improving the education quality in their country. However whether the desired level of education quality is equally distributed is still debated on. On top of that, current literature on which level of education, either basic or tertiary education, brings greater return to the society is still inconclusive. It is not the objective of this paper to answer or add on the debate. On the other hand this paper would like to explore the relationship between school quality, namely at primary education and secondary education, and economic growth. Educational inequality at primary and secondary education would be measured with using the concept of education Gini. Using GDP as the dependent variable and regressing it with Gini coefficient of primary education and secondary education, would be able to show which level of education inequality is significant in explaining the economic growth of a country. Using Malaysian data, for the last 20 years, the relationship between education inequality of different level of education and the economic growth would be postulated.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207