MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977307113 · doi:10.24331/ijere.628584

Educational Performance and the Role of Institutions

2019· article· en· W2977307113 on OpenAlexaff
R. Guidi, Stanley L. Engerman, Youssef Youssef

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Educational Research Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCulture, Economy, and Development Studies
Canadian institutionsHumber Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Relevance (law)Institutional theorySociologyInstitutional analysisReflection (computer programming)Outcome (game theory)EpistemologyPublic relationsPositive economicsSocial sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analysis of institutional characteristics within the educational context is necessary due to the relevance that education, as a fundamental area of knowledge for the development of a country, exerts on society. In this sense, the present study seeks to understand how the institutional theory, in the perspective of Acemoglu and Robinson (2012), can be applied inthe context of educational institutions. With regard to the methodological aspects, the study presents a literature review on the divergent perspectives of the institutional theory, followed by a discussion on the design by the theorists Acemoglu, Robinson and collaborators about this theory. The text provides an understanding on the connection of institutional factors and the educational outcome. An implication of this study is the opening of a new vision for analysis and reflection on institutional relationships that influence in the performance of educational institutions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Educational Research ReviewSame topicCulture, Economy, and Development StudiesFrench-language works237,207