MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176862981 · doi:10.5539/ies.v8n12p218

Socio-Economic Factors on Indonesia Education Disparity

2015· article· en· W2176862981 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuni Azzizah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsIndonesianInequalityStatisticEconomic growthGeographyRegional autonomyAutonomySocioeconomicsStandard of livingPanel dataHigher educationDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceDemographic economicsEconomicsStatisticsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">Since 1998, regional governments in Indonesia have had greater autonomy due to the commencement of a reformation movement across Indonesia. Large portions of education management were delegated to the regional governments. Because of this, the education level varies strongly across Indonesia’ provinces. Referring to the data provided by the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics, it is found that Eastern Indonesia generally has a higher rate of uneducated than Western Indonesia. We review the current condition of Indonesian education in terms of regional disparity among eastern and western provinces and study the correlation between inequality in education and other related aspects, such as social and economic conditions. We find that inequality issues on socio-economic conditions are reflected in the education disparity between Eastern and Western Indonesia. By employing panel data with provinces as units of observations, we find that the difference in regional development among Indonesian provinces influences education issues. By evaluating the standard deviation of the statistic we were able to identify socio-economic factors that influence the regional education disparity.</p>

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations50
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207