A Literature Review of School Practices to Overcome School Failure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The age/grade model of classroom and school organization emerged in the mid-19th century and has since become the standard approach to schooling across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Schools are composed of classes (and classrooms) of age/grade students. Students advance through grades, generally associated with an age, and classes are organized to deliver a grade of instruction. Promotion in the age/grade model is not guaranteed, meaning students can also fail to advance. One indication that failure is an outcome can be found in the OECD‟s 2010 Education at a Glance, which reports that 22 of 26 OECD member countries had first time upper secondary graduation rates above 70% and only a small number had rates of 90% or greater (OECD, 2010b). According to OECD statistics, this means that (on average) 20% of students at the end of four years of secondary school\nin nearly all OECD countries fail or opt to leave. In other words, 20% of students have not acquired the skills, knowledge or credits necessary to graduate from secondary education. The outcome of failure in the age/grade model has served as a method of sorting students in educational systems (OECD, 2009). Further, the sorting of students through failing or advancing in educational systems has long been accepted as a satisfactory educational model. Since the 1960s, however, the view that student failure is necessary or inevitable has come under increasing scrutiny. An emerging\nviewpoint across OECD countries is that education systems must provide a successful educational outcome for all students.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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 it