MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2388983145

Researching Educational Policies from the Perspective of Ethics:Theoretical Approach to the Fairness of Education

2008· article· en· W2388983145 on OpenAlex
Zhu Yong-kun

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKyouikugaku no kenkyuu to jissen · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEducational Reforms and Innovations
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Engineering ethicsInformation ethicsChinaSociologyManagement scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fairness of education has become the heated social topic in China. If we want to solve the problem of educational fairness,we must first start from the educational policies. The problem of fairness falls into the ethics classification,so we must apply the ethical theories and methods to analyze and research the educational policies. The rapid development of applied ethics makes it necessary to make ethical analysis and research of educational policies using the researching methods of applied ethics. Besides,educational policies are inherently ethical,with fairness as the most important,so the researches of educational policies should also pay great attention to its ethicality. Only by this way can we resolve the problem of educational fairness theoretically.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.306 · 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