A Study on the Relationship Between Mean Years of Schooling, Literacy Skills Level of the Countries, and Their Level of Democratic Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study’s objective is to examine the relationship between the mean years of schooling, level of adult literacyskills, and democratic development levels. The study was designed as a relational survey model. The analyticsemployed is the path analysis, which tests the existence of causal relationship between the variables. The statisticalanalysis indicates that a significant and strong relationship exists between the mean years of schooling and adultliteracy skills and further that a significant, medium level, relationship is present between the countries’ adult literacyskills and their democratic development levels. Moreover, literacy skills create a significant mediation impact on therelationship between the mean years of schooling and democratic development level. Also significant is the indirectimpact of the nations’ mean years of schooling on their democratic development levels. Countries seeking to sustainand protect participative and deep democracy may need to review their formal and informal education policies.Therefore, it may be especially necessary to attach greater importance to cognitive-verbal processes in formaleducation institutions as a departure point of action.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.007 | 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".