MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293923363 · doi:10.14421/jpi.2015.41.49-70

Perbandingan Sistem Pendidikan di Tiga Negara; Mesir, Iran dan Turki

2015· article· en· W2293923363 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueJurnal Pendidikan Islam · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceCurriculumEconomic growthForeign policyPopulationMiddle EastPoliticsGeographySociologyDemographyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractThis article discusses a comparative analysis of education in three countries where the population is predominantly of a Muslim background; Egypt, Iran and Turkey, andexplains about the system of education in primary schools, secondary schools and colleges.Additionally, this article clarifies the latest education policy, curriculum, subjects, andassessment systems in schools and universities. The three countries have some similarities;each country is implementing the policy of compulsory education with it split into threelevels. The other similarity being that is the students have a high interest for furtherstudy in foreign universities with some destination countries being: the United Statesof America, United Kingdom, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Ukraine, Malaysia,France, and Austria. Due to unfavorable politics in both countries of Egypt and Turkey, aswell as Iran, education has been effected by a foreign policy that is often contradictory.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.257 · 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