MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795948591 · doi:10.5539/ijel.v8n4p174

School Factors & Cumulative Inequality: A Comparative Study of Elementary Education in Pakistan

2018· article· en· W2795948591 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Afia Kanwal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of English Linguistics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSchool Choice and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantageInequalityEducational inequalityHuman capitalSociologySocial stratificationMacro levelMacroDemographicsMathematics educationPsychologyDemographic economicsEconomic growthPolitical scienceSocial scienceEconomicsDemographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stratification is deeply rooted in the networks of educational institutes at both macro and micro level. It leads to difference in accumulation of educational capital. Since the role of equal primary education in development cannot be denied; one of the key skills for success is the “linguistic key”; the English language skill. This paper aims to highlight aspects that lead to disparity among educational institutes and explore differences among Socioeconomically Divided School Systems at elementary level. Specifically this work examines trends in school factors to compare how these factors accumulate to a specific kind of linguistic exposure across socioeconomically divided school systems in Pakistan. In this ethnographic study, cumulative inequality theory of advantage and disadvantage is used as a theoretical framework and data is gathered from 30 elementary schools in Rawalpindi through demographics, teacher interviews and test scores. The results of the research show which factors play a significant role in cumulative advantage or disadvantage. The results are significant for policy makers, educationists, teachers and the larger society.

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 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)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of English LinguisticsSame topicSchool Choice and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207