Higher education and the effectiveness of public policy funding mechanisms in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esta pesquisa analisa a eficacia dos mecanismos de financiamento das principais politicas publicas para a educacao superior no Canada no periodo de 2003 a 2012, pressupondo uma lacuna quanto a proposicao de novas politicas publicas para auxiliar no financiamento do ensino superior em todo o mundo. No que se refere aos procedimentos metodologicos, o estudo foi concebido como exploratorio e quantitativo. Analisou estatisticamente um conjunto de politicas publicas usando como referencia a taxa de crescimento anual composta (CAGR), calculada, por sua vez, com base no investimento realizado e no numero de estudantes atendidos durante o periodo analisado. Os resultados mostraram que o Canada provou ser um pais de politicas publicas solidas e bem definidas, que tiveram um impacto no bom desempenho do pais, com destaque para: a CESG, que apresenta uma maneira pro-ativa de garantir o acesso e permanencia de jovens na educacao superior; o CSGP/CSLP, que foi estatisticamente significativo em relacao a porcentagem de estudantes atendidos; e o OSAP / Reaching Higher, que foi mais sensivel em relacao as necessidades do contexto em que esta inserido (provincia de Ontario).
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 | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".