Bibliographic record
Abstract
World education at the present stage consists of many different national systems. They differ from each other in national goals and objectives, cultural traditions, as well as the state of the quality of education. Russian education is undergoing a stage of reform. Now the transformations have affected the sphere of control (supervision) of educational organizations. General trends in changes in control and supervisory activities are aimed at reducing the administrative burden on business and, at the same time, increasing the protection of legally protected values. During the discussions, among other things, it was proposed to replace state control (supervision) with public control in certain areas. It will be relevant to analyze the experience of managing the education system,including state and public control, in foreign countries. As an example, the article considers Canada, which has much in common with Russia: multinationalism, large territory, federal structure, levels of education, etc., while Canada has a high rating on the assessment of education at the world level. The author assessed the management of the Canadian education system, the legal regulation of state and public control (supervision). Studying foreign experience will allow integrating it into the Russian education system, which, in turn, will allow integrating Russian education in the global world. The study was conducted using comparative legal analysis, generalization of information.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".