The Impact of Government Funding on Students’ Academic Performance in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High academic performance in senior high education is a significant issue that concerns the government and the people of Ghana because of the huge funding the government provides to schools in the form of progressive free senior high policy. Data starting from 2011/2012 to 2016/2017 academic years were picked from the students’ continuous assessment register which contains students’ academic records for each academic term. Data were collated and analyzed quantitatively using the Mann Whitney U Test to compare students’ academic performance during the period of government partial funding (progressive free policy) from 2014/2015 to 2016/2017 academic years forming a group and no funding period, starting from 2011/2012 to 2013/2014 academic years which formed another group. For the purpose of this study, two groups of twenty (20) students were sampled making forty (40) students in total using the systematic sampling technique. The Mann Whitney U test was used to analyze academic performance of students who benefited from funding and those that do not benefit from funding. The findings indicate that government funding (progressive free policy) has a greater impact on students’ academic performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".