MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959734262 · doi:10.35536/lje.2002.v7.i2.a3

Private Schooling - A Quality Puzzle

2002· article· en· W2959734262 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karamat Ali, Rana Ejaz Ali Khan

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œLahore journal of economics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiteracy rateQuarter (Canadian coin)Private educationGovernment (linguistics)Economic growthPrivate sectorDemographic economicsQuality (philosophy)Primary educationPrivate schoolChinaEconomicsBusinessLiteracyPolitical scienceSocioeconomicsHigher educationGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary school enrollment rates in Pakistan are lower than in other countries at the same level of economic development. The proportion of children reaching grade 5 is about half that in Sri Lanka and China and three-quarter that in India. Nationally, the gross primary school ratio is 74, and 101 for boys and 45 for girls. According to the National Education Policy 1992-2002, the target of literacy rate was set at 70 percent by the year 2002, which was achievable besides other measures, by inviting the private sector into education. Now, overall, private education accounts for about 10-12 percent of gross enrollments. The government of Pakistan has established a goal of universal primary enrollment by the year 2006. In the present study the quality characteristics of private schooling are discussed, i.e. qualitative aspects of schools, physical infrastructure of schools, teachers’ qualification and salaries, and fee, dropout rate, and repletion rate of the students, etc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œLahore journal of economicsSame topicGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207