Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jackie Kirk devoted her career to trying to bridge the relationships among research, policy and practice for the purpose of making the world a better place for children, teachers, and communities. Reflecting her priorities, we examine herein how research, policy and practice interact to enable a robust and dynamic program that educates girls for purposes far beyond typical policy priorities of access and parity. To do so, we rely on interviews and focus group discussions that involved over 130 individuals who were involved with one girls’ education program in a remote region of a Southeast Asian country. Their narratives reveal that the program was flexible and responsive, yet guided by clear ideas about gender equity. This work is not prescriptive or predictable; it evolves through dynamic interactions. Global policy priorities of access and parity became means toward more important goals including community sustainability in the face of environmental and economic challenges. Structures that enabled this robust program included space, time, funding, and a dynamic conceptual lens.
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 | 0.086 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".