MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366988416 · doi:10.3390/educsci13050439

Using Big Data for Educational Decisions: Lessons from the Literature for Developing Nations

2023· article· en· W4366988416 on OpenAlex
ZW Taylor, Chelseaia Charran, Joshua Childs

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

VenueEducation Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBig dataStrengths and weaknessesDeveloping countryComputer sciencePosition (finance)Data sciencePosition paperKnowledge managementPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychologyBusinessWorld Wide WebEconomic growthData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational leaders from developing countries may be tasked with using big data to help inform educational decisions. Although many researchers have explored how to use big data or datasets to help solve educational problems, few studies have articulated how educational researchers and leaders from developing nations can use big data to make educational decisions. This study provides a literature review and takes a position to help educational leaders from developing nations use big data to make educational decisions and understand the strengths and weaknesses of using data to drive decision making. Moreover, this study addresses how datasets may be limited and how educational leaders can understand these limitations when using big data.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
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 score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.774
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.160 · 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