MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746624932 · doi:10.1177/0034523717723385

Mapping an emergent field of ‘computational education policy’: Policy rationalities, prediction and data in the age of Artificial Intelligence

2017· article· en· W2746624932 on OpenAlexaff
Kalervo Ν. Gulson, P. Taylor Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRationalityTransparency (behavior)Field (mathematics)Corporate governanceComputational intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceManagement scienceBusiness intelligenceData scienceSociologyKnowledge managementPolitical scienceEconomicsManagementMathematicsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary education policy involves the integration of novel forms of data and the creation of new data platforms, in addition to the infusion of business principles into school governance networks, and intensification of socio-technical relations. In this paper, we examine how ‘computational rationality’ may be understood as intensifying of an instrumental set of logics in educational governance and decision making, and/or as opening up new explorations around the uncertainty and incompleteness of policy. We suggest that policy rationalities focused on prediction, transparency and data provide the conditions of possibility for Artificial Intelligence to be integrated into, and intensify aspects of, what we term ‘computational education policy’.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.066
Scholarly communication0.0190.031
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.441
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in EducationSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207