Concerns and Suspicions on a Questionable Science in the Era of Ideologies: The Hard Pathway of Comparative Education in Italy during the 1970s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up until the 1970s, comparative research on education had been scarcely developed in Italy. The rise of a general attention on the promising chances offered by the comparative inquiries in educational sciences was mainly due to the growing influence of several international institutions and organizations in framing a number of studies and reports on the educational process within a comparative perspective. However, the development of comparative education also met resistances and constraints in the Italian framework. A lot of critical voices rising from radical, neo-Marxist, and “not aligned” cultures questioned the alleged impartiality of the comparative discipline, expounding serious concern about the legitimacy of its scientific pretensions. On the whole, the outstanding critical views on the rise of comparative education fostered a wide suspicion of the influence of global agents in assessing the goals of education and particularly of the role of the main international organizations leading the strategies for global development.
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 | 0.045 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.126 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".