MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784733370 · doi:10.1177/0031721715614819

The Editor’s Note

2015· article· en· W2784733370 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhi Delta Kappan · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominance (genetics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Political scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)Set (abstract data type)Mathematics educationPublic administrationSociologyPedagogyPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two politicians from different parties and perspectives looked at some of the highest performing countries and regions for answers to their dominance on international educational exams and came to similar conclusions. Uniformity and consistency were among the underlying themes. Shanghai, Finland, Singapore, and Ontario have strong education systems because they set out their strategies and goals and they hew to them over decades, rather than moving from reform to reform in the U.S. Also, their selection and preparation of teachers is more rigorous. While such a centralized approach clearly works in those countries and regions, it would be problematic in the U.S., which values local control of education to a much greater extent.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.343 · 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