Bibliographic record
Abstract
CANADIANS have a peculiar relationship with measurement. We may be as obsessed with rankings, top-10 lists, and measurable outcomes as anyone else, but we complicate measurement by using two fairly incompatible systems simultaneously. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau began the introduction of metrification in 1970 despite fairly hysterical opposition. More than 35 years later, the country is stalled complacently midway between the old Imperial system and its replacement. While there are some age-related and provincial differences, in general the great majority of Canadians use a common if bewildering system that blends measurement units. Personal height and weight are nearly always expressed in feet, inches, and pounds, although distance is never described in miles. If you're in the real estate market, you would list the size of your home in square feet and then describe its distance from local attractions in kilometers. Today's weather forecast will report the temperature exclusively in degrees Celsius and wind in kilometers per hour. However, if you think you have a fever, you'll probably take to your bed when your temperature hits 100 -- that would be in degrees Fahrenheit, not Celsius. If you decide to console yourself with a hot toddy, you'll measure out an ounce or two from a bottle sold in milliliters. Your accompanying comfort food, if prepackaged, will have been sold by metric weight. However, if you are preparing it yourself, the main ingredients will most likely have been priced by the pound, although your recipe will probably call for 5 mls of salt rather than one teaspoon. Are we conflicted, confused, and stalled? Perhaps, but our ambivalence about units of measurement does not seem to impede our national urge to measure everything that moves, particularly indicators of the factors that predict, contribute to, or describe educational outcomes. The following list presents the numbers buried in the stack of 2004 reports that have been cleared off my desk to make room for the new reports that will accumulate in 2005. Unless specified, the figures are from 2003-04, the population referred to is national, and amounts are Canadian dollars. Those curious about the sources of particular figures are welcome to contact me, and I'll do my best to pull the right document from a stack that is at least three feet high -- or would that be almost a meter? 0. According to a national survey, the percentage of teachers who identify provincewide student achievement tests as a worthy government spending priority. 1. The number of provinces (out of 10 total) in which students who use computers in school daily performed better in reading than students who use a school computer less than once a month. 2. The ranking of Canadian 15-year-olds in reading among the 32 nations taking part in the Program of International Student Assessment (PISA). 3. In 2001, Canada's world ranking for average university tuition, surpassed only by the United States and Japan. 4. The sum of the average annual percentage increases in average teacher salaries between 1994 and 1998. 5. The amount, in billions of dollars, promised by the federal government to develop a national child-care program during the next four years. 6. Over a six-week period, 15% of children report being bullied more than once or twice. Six percent admit to being the bully themselves. 7. Number of hundreds of dollars the average family spends per child on back-to-school clothing, along with $400 on school supplies. 9. Percentage of youths who dropped out of high school and have not pursued any further formal education by the age of 22. 10. In round numbers, the percentage gap between the average salaries earned by male and female elementary and secondary school teachers in 2001 ($52,041 and $47,045 respectively). 11. In 2002, the richest decile of families with children enjoyed an average annual income $171,500 greater than the average income of the poorest decile, an elevenfold advantage. …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".