MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286809449 · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2022.2103516

The Education and Assessment System in Lithuania

2022· article· en· W4286809449 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationAccountabilityPolitical scienceCurriculumBologna declarationPoliticsTest (biology)Public administrationIndependence (probability theory)Function (biology)European unionEducational assessmentPedagogyPublic relationsHigher educationSociologyBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a historical and contemporary account of Lithuania’s national public education assessment system and its transformation since the country’s declaration of independence from the Soviet Union in 1990. We explore how the external examination system has developed in relation to ongoing curriculum reforms over the last 30 years, and how external examinations and standardised testing have taken priority over classroom assessment throughout this period. What becomes clear is that certain political decisions, guided by increased accountability demands, have significantly impacted classroom assessment practices, school cultures, and the mindsets of stakeholders about the role and function of assessment in Lithuania. Finally, we deploy our national and international expertise to recommend some changes to the current education system to make assessment an effective tool to improve student learning.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.428 · 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