MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neoliberalismo y procesos de privatización “en” la educación pública en Inglaterra y España.

2021· article· es· W4200608634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cristina Pulido-Montes, Luis M. Lázaro Lorente

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Teacher Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

El neoliberalismo desde la década de los 80 ha impactado en las agendas de política educativa tanto nacionales como internacionales con el objetivo de introducir la racionalidad competitiva en el seno de los sistemas educativos. En gran medida, estas políticas introducen mecanismos que ponen a funcionar a los centros educativos bajo formas pedagógicas, de gestión y de gobierno similares a las de una empresa. No en vano, el impacto y profundidad de estas reformas están relacionadas con la historia, contexto, economía y objetivos de los responsables políticos en el poder en un momento dado. Por lo tanto, no podemos hablar de un neoliberalismo, sino de diversos neoliberalismos. En el presente artículo se desarrolla un estudio comparado e intertextual sobre el impacto de las políticas “en” privatización de la educación en Inglaterra y España, con el objetivo de estudiar la recontextualización de estas políticas según el ejecutivo en el gobierno. En el caso de Inglaterra, la privatización “en” la educación ha alcanzado los objetivos de los gobiernos conservadores y laboristas. En el caso español, la racionalidad competitiva no ha irrumpido con tanta fuerza en los objetivos políticos de la izquierda política.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicEducation and Teacher TrainingFrench-language works237,207