Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aimed at examining school-based policies in Iran. School-based approach has been dominated educational systems of developed countries over the past four decades. Delegation of authority to lower levels, particularly to schools for decision making, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation is central to this approach. Efforts have been made to formulate, plan, and implement school-based policies and programs in Iran over a decade. This paper attempts to delve into the quality and quantity of these efforts by verifying and analyzing assertions and implications of Iran's 3rd, 4th, and 5th Development Plans, Theoretical foundations of fundamental Transition in Formal public Education in Islamic Republic of Iran (2011) and laws and regulations approved by Iran's Supreme Council of Education. The results indicated that although the above - mentioned documents and plans focused on the need for reforming structures and organizations, using non-governmental power and private capital, reducing government's tenure, encouraging stakeholders' participation, and favoring school independence, the quality and quantity powers assigned were incompatible with school- based assumptions. Delegation of authority was mainly centered around the decision making on how focused plans should be implemented. While many cooperative organizations have been established in schools through these policies and laws, these efforts are not based upon a comprehensive evaluation on which they can be judged. However, limited amount of evaluation has been carried out, but according to the experts' experiences and ideas, the intended goals has not been fully achieved.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".