MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168359871 · doi:10.5539/ies.v5n6p80

Analysing the Shadows: Private Tutoring as a Descriptor of the Education System in Georgia

2012· article· en· W2168359871 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Equity (law)Shadow (psychology)Quality (philosophy)Mathematics educationPrivate educationPsychological interventionSchool choiceSchool systemPsychologyPolitical scienceHigher educationEconomic growthSociologyPedagogyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past decade Georgia has received strong international support for education reform, and it represents an interesting case by which the effectiveness of particular interventions in the region can be assessed. Most attempts to analyse progress within the system have so far been concentrated on two aspects of formal education: private and public schools. This article analyses the dynamics of change from a different angle, and focuses attention on a third important, but shadow aspect of the education system: supplementary private tutoring. A representative survey of parents of school-age children and university entrants describes the scope, drivers and effects of private tutoring in Georgia. These findings are then used to analyse the effectiveness of the system in terms of the criteria of quality and equity.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.346 · 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