The Lead-up to the Education for All Conference in 1990: Framing the Global Consensus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper gives an account of the author's experience on the Steering Group of the Education for All Conference from 1989 to 1990. The main purpose is to give a firsthand account, based on primary sources, of the discussions that took place in the meetings and the editing of the documents leading up to the EFA Conference in Jomtien. This participant-observer account is based on draft documents circulated and verbatim notes taken during the preparation stage and the conference itself. The conclusion is that the original neo-liberal economic approach to improving basic education was retained in the final documents because alternative approaches were largely discouraged or reduced to small editorial changes. The main mechanisms for ensuring this result were the drafting and publicizing of the original documents as the basis for building a “global consensus” with little time or opportunity for changing the basic assumptions underlying the suggestions for research and reform.
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 | 0.087 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".