MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126273190 · doi:10.5539/ies.v14n2p69

Parental Involvement in the Arab and Jewish Educational Systems

2021· article· en· W3126273190 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Moshe Sharabi, Gilad Cohen-Ynon, Marina Soskis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParental Involvement in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJudaismCollectivismPsychologyIndividualismPerceptionSocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, no comparison has been made between the Arab and Jewish educational systems regarding parental involvement. This preliminary study examines the perceptions about parental involvement as described by the pedagogic staff and compares the two sectors (Jewish vs. Arab as two ethno-religious groups). Staff members from four elementary schools (two Jewish schools and two Arab schools) were interviewed. The findings indicate that parental involvement in the Arab sector is lower than in the Jewish sector. The Arab parents have more respect and trust towards the school, the principal, and the teachers compared to the Jewish parents. This is reflected by lower involvement of the Arab parents in comparison to the Jewish parents. While Jewish parents who volunteer for parents’ associations use their status to promote their personal interest (their child’s benefit) and less desire to contribute to the school, Arab parents volunteer more to help the principals and teachers to get resources from the Mayor/ Head of the municipal council and less for their own child’s benefit. The depth and the type of parental involvement in the Jewish and the Arab educational systems can be explained by cultural differences, namely an individualistic Jewish society vs. a collectivistic Arab society.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicParental Involvement in EducationFrench-language works237,207