Do resources matter? PISA science achievement comparisons between students in the United States, Canada and Finland
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 PISA 2006 Science Literacy Assessment results report Finland as the first ranked country out of the 30 developed nations that participated in the testing (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2007). The United States was ranked 21st. Closer examination of school and student variables may help explain these outcomes. This article will use the PISA 2006 data to investigate how school resource indicators such as teacher qualifications, school resources, and school type, as well as student level indicators such as socioeconomic status and family resources affect science achievement. Comparisons will include the United States, Canada, and Finland. Due to the differences in the structure of educational systems and the makeup of student populations, findings have given an inaccurate impression that international competitiveness in science is not a viable option for the US (Ginsburg, Leinwand, & Pollock, 2007). Findings indicate school funding practices, teacher quality, school type, and family socioeconomic status impact student science achievement and have an effect on international school rankings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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