MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245748592 · doi:10.1787/5k91d4jrld9q-en

Is there really such a Thing as a “Second Chance” in Education?

2012· report· en· W4245748592 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePISA in focus · 2012
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Challenges and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe ThingPsychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the reading proficiency of Canadian 15-year-olds closely predicts reading proficiency at age 24, young adults can shape their reading skills after the end of compulsory schooling. In the transition to young adulthood, reading skills generally improve – but more for some groups than for others. Immigrants, in particular, manage to close performance gaps between the ages of 15 and 24. Participation in some forms of formal post-secondary education is consistently and substantially related to improvements in reading skills between the ages of 15 and 24.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.004

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePISA in focusSame topicEducational Challenges and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207