MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122261430 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v3n1p201

Application of Multilevel Latent Class Analysis to Identify Achievement and Socio-Economic Typologies in the 20 Wealthiest Countries

2013· article· en· W2122261430 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W. Holmes Finch, Gregory J. Marchant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRanking (information retrieval)Test (biology)Context (archaeology)Nonparametric statisticsLatent class modelAchievement testClass (philosophy)Student achievementPsychologyMultilevel modelAcademic achievementMathematics educationPolitical scienceStandardized testEconometricsStatisticsEconomicsGeographyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been increased interest in cross-national comparisons of educational achievement, particularly using the data provided through the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The growing tendency in the popular media is to characterize such comparisons by ranking nations based upon mean achievement test scores. However, recent work has demonstrated that the way in which students are organized in schools has a impact on student achievement. The current study demonstrated the utility of a relatively new statistical technique, the nonparametric latent class model, to investigate the cross national organization of schools and its relationship to student achievement and socio-economic status. The results demonstrated that indeed, it is not enough to simply compare mean achievement performance across countries, but rather that the ways in which nations organize students into schools is also associated with test performance. The results of this study highlight both the importance of understanding school organizational context, and the analytic power of the nonparametric latent class model.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.363 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207