MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Relationships Between Out-of-School-Time Lessons and Academic Performance Among Adolescents in Four High-Performing Education Systems

2022· book-chapter· en· W4226400407 on OpenAlexaff
David Litz, Shaljan Areepattamannil, Scott Parkman

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Reforms and Inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusChinaScope (computer science)Academic achievementPolitical sciencePsychologyMathematics educationSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research into the effects of out-of-school-time mathematics and science lessons on academic performance has thus far proved inconclusive. The relationship between the two requires investigation to elucidate the benefits of these lessons or lack thereof. Using data from the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), this study examined the relationship between out-of-school-time mathematics and science lessons and academic performance among 15-year-olds in Hong Kong, China; Korea; Shanghai, China; and Singapore. In light of different cultural contexts, educational standards, and societal norms, and after accounting for gender and family socioeconomic status, which takes into consideration parents' occupational status, years of education, and home possessions, regression analyses revealed inconsistent results across these countries. The study concludes with the implications of the findings and scope for future research, underscoring the need for further investigation that addresses educational disparities in Asia and globally.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book seriesSame topicGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesFrench-language works237,207