A Comparative Study of State Social Policies on Education and Its Shadow in South Korea and Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education and private tutoring activities particularly are under influence of state social policies. The paper uses term “social policy” to show macro social and political attitudes of each state toward education. This paper compares social policies concerning education and its shadow in six states of South Korea with their four counterparts in Iran from 1980 to 2010. An overview of each state’s policy in both countries provides two main similarities. First, during the last three decades, policies did not control the rapid expansion of the shadow education system. Second, the state policies indicated a contradictory situation which simultaneously limited and accelerated the expansion of private tutoring activities. Despite these similarities, state policies necessarily did not lead to the same results. While, change and transformation in the political structure in South Korea (i.e., from a totalitarian toward a neoliberal system) presumably has redefined the role of the shadow education system as a tool in the service of social and economic development of the country; In Iran, however, the political system, through a cyclical policy process (i.e., closed to semi-open to closed), seems to have accelerated a “brain drain” phenomenon as the outcome of private tutoring activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".