MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127758689

THE PRIVATE TUTORING MARKET IN THE JAPANESE, CANADIAN AND POLISH EDUCATION SYSTEMS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

2015· article· en· W2127758689 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Goretta Siadak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonPrincipal (computer security)TUTORSubject (documents)Public relationsPrivate educationPolitical scienceScale (ratio)Higher educationBusinessSociologyPedagogyComputer scienceGeographyLibrary scienceEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of the private tutoring market is one of the most urgent problems of education which should become a subject of international theoretical debate. Therefore, the article will take a closer look at different types of private lessons which appear in the Japanese, Polish, and Canadian systems of education. Each of them displays certain distinct characteristics ranging from individual tutorials to group lessons in the form of courses offered by tutorial educational centers. The main aim of the article is to present an overview of studies on the subject and a comparative analysis of the private tutorial phenomenon in the Japanese, Polish, and Canadian educational systems based on its principal categories and the directions of its further development: the scale of the phenomenon of private tutoring in particular countries, organizational aspects of the private lessons market, the reasons for seeking help of a private tutor, and the results of using such services. Key words: private tutoring phenomenon, shadow education, private tutor, juku schools, private tutoring center, shadow education center, learning center 1.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207