Bibliographic record
Abstract
A forthcoming book of mine, The Child and the State in India, looks at the issues of child labour and compulsory education in India in comparison with the experience of Europe, Japan and the United States in the Nineteenth century and a number of contemporary developing countries. Let me state briefly the argument of my book. By the end of the Nineteenth century and in some instances much earlier, all developed countries had adopted a policy that all children must attend school. Poor parents did not have the right to keep their children out of school, nor did children have the right to drop out of school. These societies moved from the notion of education as a right accessible to all to the notion of education as a duty that obliges children to attend school, and obliges parents of all social categories to ensure that their children attend school. The driving force behind this policy has been the intervention of the State. The reasons for doing so vary considerably from country to country. In some countries the movement for making education compulsory was driven by theological considerations. This was specially true in the countries of Protestant Europe which were the first societies to develop compulsory education. Catholic countries were generally late in pro moting mass education. In those Catholic countries that did move early (e.g. France), the movement for compulsory education was associated with anti-clerical sentiments. In Japan, where education was made compulsory in 1882, the regime was concerned with inculcating notions of patriotism, filial piety, obedience to the emperor and was anxious to develop the Japanese people's capacity to compete with other countries. In a number of post-revolutionary regimes, the State's education policy was motivated by ideological considerations. The governments of the Soviet Union, China, Viet Nam and Cuba were committed to restructuring
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.191 | 0.066 |
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".